| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Tree damaged by car accident - Insurance problems
This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my
house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA |
Is Commerce your company, or the driver's?
"Alan Sung" wrote in message news:Y96Xc.90515$TI1.90202@attbi_s52... This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA |
In article Y96Xc.90515$TI1.90202@attbi_s52, "Alan Sung" wrote:
This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA I think the arborist gave you a very sound diagnosis, & the insurance company is doing what insurance companies always attempt to do, evade payment. Your next letter to them should be from your attorney, with added costs of a second aborist's diagnosis, plus attorney fees. But bare in mind that moving a full grown tree to a new location is not the most certain way of getting a healthy tree. Unless it comes with a three-year guarantee (you'll be lucky to get a one-year guarantee, from tree movers who know it'll last that long at least so they're safe offering that limited promise) the chances of it slowly wasting away are very good for an uprooted & transported adult tree. A much younger tree will settle in much more certainly. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
paghat wrote:
In article Y96Xc.90515$TI1.90202@attbi_s52, "Alan Sung" wrote: This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA I think the arborist gave you a very sound diagnosis, & the insurance company is doing what insurance companies always attempt to do, evade payment. Your next letter to them should be from your attorney, with added costs of a second aborist's diagnosis, plus attorney fees. But bare in mind that moving a full grown tree to a new location is not the most certain way of getting a healthy tree. Unless it comes with a three-year guarantee (you'll be lucky to get a one-year guarantee, from tree movers who know it'll last that long at least so they're safe offering that limited promise) the chances of it slowly wasting away are very good for an uprooted & transported adult tree. A much younger tree will settle in much more certainly. -paghat the ratgirl It might be better to file a claim against your homeowner's policy and let your insurance company sue the other insurance co. At least talk to your insurance agent about how to collect from the other deadbeat insurance company. (it gets interesting if they are the same company) BTW, around here, Norway Maple is considered an invasive exotic species. Best regards, Bob |
"zxcvbob" wrote in message ... paghat wrote: In article Y96Xc.90515$TI1.90202@attbi_s52, "Alan Sung" wrote: This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA I think the arborist gave you a very sound diagnosis, & the insurance company is doing what insurance companies always attempt to do, evade payment. Your next letter to them should be from your attorney, with added costs of a second aborist's diagnosis, plus attorney fees. But bare in mind that moving a full grown tree to a new location is not the most certain way of getting a healthy tree. Unless it comes with a three-year guarantee (you'll be lucky to get a one-year guarantee, from tree movers who know it'll last that long at least so they're safe offering that limited promise) the chances of it slowly wasting away are very good for an uprooted & transported adult tree. A much younger tree will settle in much more certainly. -paghat the ratgirl It might be better to file a claim against your homeowner's policy and let your insurance company sue the other insurance co. At least talk to your insurance agent about how to collect from the other deadbeat insurance company. (it gets interesting if they are the same company) BTW, around here, Norway Maple is considered an invasive exotic species. One thing to consider about filing a claim with your insurance company is that it could end-up getting you dropped, particularly if you have filed other claims in the last few years. Insurance companies have been scrambling to cut cost recently with the loss of investment income coupled with underwriting losses from large-scale disasters. In Ohio, insurers have been reviewing their files and dropping anyone with more than two claims in three to five years. I know of two people who were dropped this year even though they had only filed two small claims that were related to damage beyond their control. Another person received an advisory letter. In addition, I learned recently that people are checking the number of claims that a home seller has filed as part of their home search to make sure that they can get insurance and that the premiums will be affordable. Filing a claim may make it harder to sell your home if that is a possibility. Life never gets more simple. |
zxcvbob expounded:
It might be better to file a claim against your homeowner's policy and let your insurance company sue the other insurance co. At least talk to your insurance agent about how to collect from the other deadbeat insurance company. (it gets interesting if they are the same company) Bad idea. Insurance claims on your own policy can lead to cancellation. Commerce is responsive to lawyer threats. Paghat had several good suggestions, I'd take her advise .. BTW, around here, Norway Maple is considered an invasive exotic species. Unfortunately they're still sold by the nursery industry. -- Ann, Gardening in zone 6a Just south of Boston, MA ******************************** |
"Vox Humana" in
: One thing to consider about filing a claim with your insurance company is that it could end-up getting you dropped, particularly if you have filed other claims in the last few years i wonder what line of business insurance companies are planning to shift toward? |
Ann in news:f42qi0d14t0iikhl0d536rb06nfce0c2qh@
4ax.com: Commerce is responsive to lawyer threats. true, they pass laws that restrict usage of courts for only business catfights. Paghat had several good suggestions, I'd take her advise |
sounds good but never, ever, never make a claim against homeowners insurance unless
your house is totaled. they cancel policies and black list people faster than car insurance companies. Ingrid zxcvbob wrote: It might be better to file a claim against your homeowner's policy and let your insurance company sue the other insurance co. At least talk to your insurance agent about how to collect from the other deadbeat insurance company. (it gets interesting if they are the same company) BTW, around here, Norway Maple is considered an invasive exotic species. Best regards, Bob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. |
" wrote in message ... "Vox Humana" in : One thing to consider about filing a claim with your insurance company is that it could end-up getting you dropped, particularly if you have filed other claims in the last few years i wonder what line of business insurance companies are planning to shift toward? The business of taking your policy money for twenty years and then dropping you when you file a claim because the siding blew off your house and then six months later your roof was damaged by lighting. |
zxcvbob wrote:
BTW, around here, Norway Maple is considered an invasive exotic species. Best regards, Bob Unless you say where here is your statement is worthless. -- Travis in Shoreline Washington |
"Alan Sung" wrote in message news:Y96Xc.90515$TI1.90202@attbi_s52... This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? You could get the 2nd opinion but I suggest you also look into the limit in small claims court in your area. You can usually sue there without needing a lawyer. Frank |
"Alan Sung" wrote This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA The insurance company is banking that you did not have the tree insured for more. Your homeowners policy _probably_ would only pay $500 for removal etc if it got hit by lightning. $500 is the normal for storm damage, be it 1 tree or 20, most policies have a $500 cap per incident (not per tree). You should be able to verify this through your policy or a quick call to your agent. Now if you updated your insurance, and can prove you had it insured for over 6k, then it's a different story. |
Travis expounded:
zxcvbob wrote: BTW, around here, Norway Maple is considered an invasive exotic species. Best regards, Bob Unless you say where here is your statement is worthless. Norway maples are an invasive exotic species all over the country. They push out native red maples around here, along with sugar maple seedlings. I can show you acres of forest overtaken by them around here. They shouldn't be sold period. -- Ann, Gardening in zone 6a Just south of Boston, MA ******************************** |
"Murph" wrote in message ... "Alan Sung" wrote This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA The insurance company is banking that you did not have the tree insured for more. Your homeowners policy _probably_ would only pay $500 for removal etc if it got hit by lightning. $500 is the normal for storm damage, be it 1 tree or 20, most policies have a $500 cap per incident (not per tree). You should be able to verify this through your policy or a quick call to your agent. Now if you updated your insurance, and can prove you had it insured for over 6k, then it's a different story. I don't see how the victim's insurance is relevant to the value of the tree. |
"Vox Humana" wrote I don't see how the victim's insurance is relevant to the value of the tree. Your statement is exactly why every homeowner needs to keep their policies updated. Most homeowners basic policies cover $2k in jewelry, should you have a fire or anyother loss which is by nature or by a person. You cannot attempt to claim $10k in jewelry loss, unless you have an additional rider. Should you add a shed, you need to update your policy. ANY improvements, be it landscape or structural, you need to update your policy. Specialty landscapes need a rider, ask your agent. Insurance is not meant to be a windfall in instances like the OP (which is how insurance companies look at this). The relevancy of value would come out in court, if the OP had a rider for a specialty item. If they didn't feel it was valuable enough for an additional premium, this is one of the first fact findings arguements in insurance. Rest assured, precedents have already been set for instances like this. Policies for actual cash replacement, do not include trees. You can ask your agent and let them explain to you. I don't intend to prove a point, give your friendly agent a call and inquire. Most agents are more than willing to talk about an instance like the OP's. If I were the OP, I would talk to my agent first before running to an attorney. The agent has already been paid to answer questions. The attorney will answer questions for a fee, and unfortunately some are eager to go to court be it a win or lose situation. It would be unfortunate for the OP to have a couple thousand dollars in legal fees, with the end result being rewarded with $500 as intially offered by the insurance company. The OP is already mounting fees from a horticulturalist, unless this was a freebee. |
I think Vox's point was that the SUV driver's automobile liability
policy would pay, not the homeowner's policy. The homeowner's policy *should* be irrelevant. I mentioned the homeowner's policy eariler because it would (I think) cover whatever was not paid by the other guy's auto policy. The homeowner's insurance company would have an interest in you collecting from that other policy so they wouldn't have to pay anything. I still don't think I explained that very well... Bob Murph wrote: "Vox Humana" wrote I don't see how the victim's insurance is relevant to the value of the tree. Your statement is exactly why every homeowner needs to keep their policies updated. Most homeowners basic policies cover $2k in jewelry, should you have a fire or anyother loss which is by nature or by a person. You cannot attempt to claim $10k in jewelry loss, unless you have an additional rider. Should you add a shed, you need to update your policy. ANY improvements, be it landscape or structural, you need to update your policy. Specialty landscapes need a rider, ask your agent. Insurance is not meant to be a windfall in instances like the OP (which is how insurance companies look at this). The relevancy of value would come out in court, if the OP had a rider for a specialty item. If they didn't feel it was valuable enough for an additional premium, this is one of the first fact findings arguements in insurance. Rest assured, precedents have already been set for instances like this. Policies for actual cash replacement, do not include trees. You can ask your agent and let them explain to you. I don't intend to prove a point, give your friendly agent a call and inquire. Most agents are more than willing to talk about an instance like the OP's. If I were the OP, I would talk to my agent first before running to an attorney. The agent has already been paid to answer questions. The attorney will answer questions for a fee, and unfortunately some are eager to go to court be it a win or lose situation. It would be unfortunate for the OP to have a couple thousand dollars in legal fees, with the end result being rewarded with $500 as intially offered by the insurance company. The OP is already mounting fees from a horticulturalist, unless this was a freebee. |
"zxcvbob" wrote I think Vox's point was that the SUV driver's automobile liability policy would pay, not the homeowner's policy. The homeowner's policy *should* be irrelevant. I mentioned the homeowner's policy eariler because it would (I think) cover whatever was not paid by the other guy's auto policy. The homeowner's insurance company would have an interest in you collecting from that other policy so they wouldn't have to pay anything. I still don't think I explained that very well... Bob This is why I encourage the OP to contact their agent. Each State in the U.S.A varies, I do know for a fact that in the State of Ohio, this would be relevant in an instance like the OP's. It doesn't matter what, you think, Vox thinks, or I think. I'm going by my experience in the State of Ohio. Our insurance and precedents mean absolutely ziltch when comparing to another State. I repeat, the OP's agent would be the best one to contact at this time. |
"Warren" wrote in message news:eQbXc.311406$a24.59732@attbi_s03... Murph wrote: "Vox Humana" wrote I don't see how the victim's insurance is relevant to the value of the tree. Your statement is exactly why every homeowner needs to keep their policies updated. Most homeowners basic policies cover $2k in jewelry, should you have a fire or anyother loss which is by nature or by a person. You cannot attempt to claim $10k in jewelry loss, unless you have an additional rider. snip The insurance is the auto insurance of the guy who hit the tree. What his homeowner's insurance would cover is irrelevant. If I were the OP, I would talk to my agent first before running to an attorney. The agent has already been paid to answer questions. The attorney will answer questions for a fee, and unfortunately some are eager to go to court be it a win or lose situation. It would be unfortunate for the OP to have a couple thousand dollars in legal fees, with the end result being rewarded with $500 as intially offered by the insurance company. The OP is already mounting fees from a horticulturalist, unless this was a freebee. If you're talking about him going to his home owner's insurance, it's a very bad idea to talk to him/her. If he files a claim, or even alerts his homeowner's insurance company that there has been significant damage to the tree, an entry will be made into the CLUE record for his house. Not only does he run the risk of being canceled at the next renewal (or seeing a big rise in his premium), any other insurance company he would go to for coverage will use CLUE and see his problem. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/o...7937947660.xml Talking to his homeowner's insurance agent about this problem will likely cost him quite a bit in the long run. On the other hand, no attorney is going to want to go to court over damage to a single tree. That includes the insurance company's legal department as well. But for under $100 he can get an attorney to write a letter to the auto insurance company reminding them that they have an obligation to pay costs, and that the certified arborist is a far more qualified person to determine the tree's damage, and is far more qualified to know what it costs to correct the damage, and make the homeowner whole. That will usually be enough to shake out a good settlement in an automobile accident with less than $10,000 damage to another party's property, which is almost certainly below the liability limits of the driver's policy. Again: Do NOT get the homeowner's insurance involved. This is a fairly simple issue in the auto insurance world. All that's left is to negotiate the settlement. Put it in the homeowner's insurance world, and CLUE will haunt the OP for a long, long time, and cost him far more in the long run than if he footed the bill out of his own pocket. -- Warren H. You're wrong. Agents are there to answer all questions. They do not file claims when you ask them a question. They will guide you the best route to take. Agents know their prospective regulatory laws of their State. I would like to know, how you know if it's relevant in the OP's State? I know for a fact it's relevant in the State of Ohio, all States vary as I mentioned before. It may or may not be relevant depending on the OP's laws and precedents in the State they reside. Negotiating a settlement without having knowledge in the field, is very poor advice. |
Revise your claim. Your claim should include only the value of the
tree before it was damaged, the cost of TOTAL removal (including cutting, hauling, and grinding out the stump so that a new tree can be planted), and the costs of submitting the claim (e.g., the cost of the arborist's estimate). Do not include the cost of a replacement tree (see below). Does you local municipality or county have an arborist? Is there an agricultural extension? Can you pay to have them appraise the tree? I contacted a friend with our local park agency to appraise the value of two trees, based on how the agency values its own trees in this situation. Otherwise, get another arborist, one that is both licensed (if they are licensed in your area) and a member of a national professional society. (Add the cost to your claim.) When the claim is settled and the old tree is removed, replace it with a much younger tree (5 or 10 gallon can). In a few years, it will be thriving and growing much more vigorously than a specimen tree the size of your old tree. And you will have some money left over from the settlement. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that complies with Web standards. See http://www.mozilla.org/. |
"zxcvbob" wrote in message ... I think Vox's point was that the SUV driver's automobile liability policy would pay, not the homeowner's policy. The homeowner's policy *should* be irrelevant. Yes. That's exactly what I meant. Let's say the homeowner fell on hard times, or was very wealthy and didn't have insurance. Would everything he owned be considered worthless because it wasn't insured? I don't think so. |
After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back
and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." Insurance companies (or their CEOs) don't get rich by writing out checks. Make no mistake about it, their business is making money, not taking care of you. In dealing with insurance companies, I've never been able to get anywhere near reasonable restitution without a battle. A regular adjuster will not EVER be able to do it for you, you're going to have to go farther up the food chain. And, unfortunately, in the case of a tree (instead of a car), you're probably going to have to file a lawsuit. If your locality allows that large of damages in small claims court, and you feel sufficiently prepared to go up against the insurance company, you can do it very cheaply. But make no mistake about it, though, it's going to be a battle. steve |
Revise your claim. Your claim should include only the value of the
tree before it was damaged, the cost of TOTAL removal (including cutting, hauling, and grinding out the stump so that a new tree can be planted), and the costs of submitting the claim (e.g., the cost of the arborist's estimate). Do not include the cost of a replacement tree (see below). That's still not at all fair to him. That's like letting someone hit your car, total it, and letting their insurance just tow it away. They're taking a real-world loss to their property value by losing the tree, and in order to be made whole, the tree should be replaced - or they should be compensated for the loss of property value. That's not trying to stick it to the insurance company, that's just being made whole. I've had to deal with insurance companies of idiots who have caused me harm and damage various times. Not in any case did the insurance company want to even come close to an honest restitution of the damages. I didn't ask for anything other than to be restored to what I had before their insured party caused the damages. (I don't think that's at all unfair) In every case, I had to fight a long, hard battle just to get that - but luckily, so far, I've been able to eventually drag it out of them. If I were the person who caused the accident, I'd probably feel differently. But as an innocent victim, I have a hard time accepting the fact that I should just bend over and take a loss just because some insurance company feels like pocketing a little more money that quarter. steve |
I am not going to reprint reams of past post
I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have the tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in its place. Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity (not having the mature tree to look at). I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in hell of it ever being a good tree. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Is Commerce your company, or the driver's? Commerce is the driver's insurance company. -al |
"David Hill" wrote in message
... I am not going to reprint reams of past post I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have the tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in its place. Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity (not having the mature tree to look at). I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in hell of it ever being a good tree. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk I asked Commerce that if they had an adjuster give them a $500 figure, then would they be willing to come out and replace the tree or could they give me the name of the landscape company/nursery who would perform this work for $500. They said NO because they do not think the tree should be replaced at all. I then asked them who made the assessment of the damage and what their qualifications were. They said they could not divulge that information and the damage assessment report could only be obtained by subpoena in court. -al sung |
"Vox Humana" wrote:
"Murph" wrote in message ... "Alan Sung" wrote This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference and is about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3 of the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood. The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for the damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come and look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This tree will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year this tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and internal rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No remedial action can save this tree." The numbers we Tree: $5,000 Delivery w/crane truck: $275 Tree and stump removal: $600 Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600 After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back and said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an adjuster to look at the tree and it looks just fine." I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified horticulturalist who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have any recommendations or the best way to proceed? Thanks, -al sung Hopkinton, MA The insurance company is banking that you did not have the tree insured for more. Your homeowners policy _probably_ would only pay $500 for removal etc if it got hit by lightning. $500 is the normal for storm damage, be it 1 tree or 20, most policies have a $500 cap per incident (not per tree). You should be able to verify this through your policy or a quick call to your agent. Now if you updated your insurance, and can prove you had it insured for over 6k, then it's a different story. I don't see how the victim's insurance is relevant to the value of the tree. .................... please people, can you top post so I dont have to scroll down thru all the previous person's message to find the message???? It just makes more sense if messages arent trimmed. Ingrid ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. |
"Alan Sung" wrote in message news:%lmXc.64311$Fg5.15302@attbi_s53... "David Hill" wrote in message ... I am not going to reprint reams of past post I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have the tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in its place. Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity (not having the mature tree to look at). I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in hell of it ever being a good tree. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk I asked Commerce that if they had an adjuster give them a $500 figure, then would they be willing to come out and replace the tree or could they give me the name of the landscape company/nursery who would perform this work for $500. They said NO because they do not think the tree should be replaced at all. I then asked them who made the assessment of the damage and what their qualifications were. They said they could not divulge that information and the damage assessment report could only be obtained by subpoena in court. -al sung Call your town/city hall and find out if you can do this yourself. In other words, the judge who handles small claims might be able to provide a subpoena without your having to hire a lawyer. This could end up being cheap. |
Alan Sung wrote:
"David Hill" wrote in message ... I am not going to reprint reams of past post I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have the tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in its place. Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity (not having the mature tree to look at). I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in hell of it ever being a good tree. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk I asked Commerce that if they had an adjuster give them a $500 figure, then would they be willing to come out and replace the tree or could they give me the name of the landscape company/nursery who would perform this work for $500. They said NO because they do not think the tree should be replaced at all. I then asked them who made the assessment of the damage and what their qualifications were. They said they could not divulge that information and the damage assessment report could only be obtained by subpoena in court. -al sung They are daring you to sue them. It's time to contact the state attorney general's office, and the state board of insurance examiners. Bob |
Steve Wolfe wrote [in part]:
I previously wrote [also in part]: Revise your claim. Your claim should include only the value of the tree before it was damaged, the cost of TOTAL removal (including cutting, hauling, and grinding out the stump so that a new tree can be planted), and the costs of submitting the claim (e.g., the cost of the arborist's estimate). Do not include the cost of a replacement tree (see below). That's still not at all fair to him. That's like letting someone hit your car, total it, and letting their insurance just tow it away. They're taking a real-world loss to their property value by losing the tree, and in order to be made whole, the tree should be replaced - or they should be compensated for the loss of property value. That's not trying to stick it to the insurance company, that's just being made whole. You failed to understand what I wrote. The claim must include the value of the tree BEFORE the accident. That is exactly how a claim in an automobile collision would be settled if the victim's vehicle were totalled; he would get what the car was worth before the accident, not what a new car would cost. In this way, the homeowner would receive compensation for the loss of the value of his property caused by the fatal damage to his tree. In this case (a gardening newsgroup), my advice stands. (That's planting advice, not insurance or legal advice.) Replace the tree with something younger and smaller. It is likely to become better established and thrive better than planting a specimen tree that attempts to match the damaged tree in age and size. In the meantime, since a 5-10 gallon tree would obviously cost less than the old tree was worth, the homeowner would realize some cash as compensation for the time it takes the new tree to grow. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that complies with Web standards. See http://www.mozilla.org/. |
trimming is not a universal practice, which is what makes top posting a lot less time
consuming. I rarely have a problem figuring out what is being talked about cause the messages come threaded and in order. maybe 2% of the time if I dont know what the topic is I roll down to take a look. yes, once in a while I will intersperse responses to specific questions. but I dont respond to most messages. what is most time consuming is rolling all the way down to find the response is some variation of "me too". Ingrid "S. M. Henning" wrote: No. But if the message is trimmed, it makes more sense to leave the part a person is responding to at the beginning so they don't have to repeat what they are responding to. It makes most sense to trim and then post he reply after each section of the trimming. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. |
wrote:
trimming is not a universal practice, ... But is should be. I have seen email messages with a half-dozen others included. what is most time consuming is rolling all the way down ... What is slick is a mouse with a thumbwheel on it. Then you can scroll up and down in a fraction of a second. No time is consumed. -- Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to |
"S. M. Henning" wrote in message ... wrote: trimming is not a universal practice, ... But is should be. I have seen email messages with a half-dozen others included. what is most time consuming is rolling all the way down ... What is slick is a mouse with a thumbwheel on it. Then you can scroll up and down in a fraction of a second. No time is consumed. You can also page-down by hitting the space bar. |
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote: "S. M. Henning" wrote in message ... wrote: trimming is not a universal practice, ... But is should be. I have seen email messages with a half-dozen others included. what is most time consuming is rolling all the way down ... What is slick is a mouse with a thumbwheel on it. Then you can scroll up and down in a fraction of a second. No time is consumed. You can also page-down by hitting the space bar. People who top-post, I tend to stop reading their posts after a while, because I don't want to have to scroll down then back up again, just to find out what the hell they think they're responding to. Their method doubles the amount of time it takes to read the post in context, while failing to double the value of the time spent reading. Top-posting is outdone by people who leave nothing at all of the previous post but respond to it anyway. No context at all! As for people who never trim the previous posts so that each addition makes consecutive posts longer & longer & longer, I rarely bother to scroll to the bottom for the newest addition, because I've learned over time if they're too dumb to know how to trim a post, they're too dumb to say anything interesting. In some newsgroups, however, this is called "cascading," & people make terse comments one after another until the posts are exceedingly long. This is a tradition especially in flame newsgroups, which pretty much reflects the value of never trimming. I also tend to stop reading posters who don't have enough sense to turn off MIME or html features. Again, if they're too dumb to post properly, they're not apt to be bright enough to say anything of interest, so I'm not likely to miss anything useful or entertaining by skipping to the next. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:46:19 -0700,
(paghat) wrote: In article , "Vox Humana" wrote: "S. M. Henning" wrote in message ... wrote: trimming is not a universal practice, ... But is should be. I have seen email messages with a half-dozen others included. what is most time consuming is rolling all the way down ... What is slick is a mouse with a thumbwheel on it. Then you can scroll up and down in a fraction of a second. No time is consumed. You can also page-down by hitting the space bar. People who top-post, I tend to stop reading their posts after a while, because I don't want to have to scroll down then back up again, just to find out what the hell they think they're responding to. Their method doubles the amount of time it takes to read the post in context, while failing to double the value of the time spent reading. Top-posting is outdone by people who leave nothing at all of the previous post but respond to it anyway. No context at all! As for people who never trim the previous posts so that each addition makes consecutive posts longer & longer & longer, I rarely bother to scroll to the bottom for the newest addition, because I've learned over time if they're too dumb to know how to trim a post, they're too dumb to say anything interesting. In some newsgroups, however, this is called "cascading," & people make terse comments one after another until the posts are exceedingly long. This is a tradition especially in flame newsgroups, which pretty much reflects the value of never trimming. I also tend to stop reading posters who don't have enough sense to turn off MIME or html features. Again, if they're too dumb to post properly, they're not apt to be bright enough to say anything of interest, so I'm not likely to miss anything useful or entertaining by skipping to the next. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com OK, this is bottom posted, but I've thought long and hard about this issue and realised that my view depends upon circumstances. If I am coming to the thread where only one or two new messages have been added since I last logged on and where I have seen and remembered earlier messages within the last day or so when they are still reasonably fresh in my mind, I can pick up the story quite adequately with some reminder of old context posted above (with suitable snipping) and new context bottom posted. In contrast, if I am playing catch up with several week's worth of messages and multiple threads (as I am with other threads at the moment), I have a lengthy session where I know the content of the preceding message in the thread because I have read it from the beginning of the thread 30 secs earlier and it is tedious to scroll down to find the added new comments. I have come to the conclusion that I will accept any method of reading posts in this newsgroup in order to make sure that I don't miss out on the intrigue, the scandal, the conflict going on, as well as updated news about old friends, and of course ... occasionally new tips about gardening! (;-) Geoff decipher email: |
"Vox Humana" wrote:
You can also page-down by hitting the space bar. depending on what Newsreader program you are using and what type of computer you have. I have a Mac with MT_NewsWatcher on it and that works for me. (paghat) wrote: People who top-post, I tend to stop reading their posts after a while, because I don't want to have to scroll down then back up again, just to find out what the hell they think they're responding to. Their method doubles the amount of time it takes to read the post in context, while failing to double the value of the time spent reading. I second that. That is 100% true. And trim, trim, trim!!! -- Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to |
You failed to understand what I wrote. The claim must include the
value of the tree BEFORE the accident. That is exactly how a claim in an automobile collision would be settled if the victim's vehicle were totalled; he would get what the car was worth before the accident, not what a new car would cost. I've always seen them handled as the cost of a replacement. That may (or may not) be the value of the car before the accident. steve |
I've often been guilty of top-posting, but usually in response to a single
sentence or paragraph query. Although I've admitted guilt, I don't feel guilty, which, as a lapsed Catholic, is the only moral aspect I care about....lol "S. M. Henning" wrote in message trim, trim, trim!!! |
I presume that all this wrangling over top/bottom posting is to give the
tree time to either recover or die. Or are you all hoping there will be a reply from the insurance company in the mean time? -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter