Home My tree fell in storm. My ins co will cover my losses but not my neighbours!

P

peterg

Guest
In a storm earlier this year a large tree in my garden came down and damaged, inter alia, some of my next door neighbour's property.

My insurance company is refusing to compensate my neighbour, although it has compensated me for some of the other costs I have incurred, including the reconstruction of the party wall.

The company argues that what happened was not my fault, I could not have foreseen what happened to the tree, thus it was an act of God and my neighbour should claim on his own insurance policy, which he is reluctant to do because of the likely effect on his future premiums.

This seems mad to me. My tree damaged my neighbour's property, therefore surely it is my responsibility (and by extension my insurer's) to make good the damage?

I would be interested to hear of custom, precedents, insurance law etc. in this area.
 
Follow the complaint's procedure with your insurance company by possibly writing directly to the M.D. or Chief Executive. If you don't get anywhere with this then refer the matter to the [broken link removed]

Seems unfair and when a colleague had the same accident happen in his garden his insurance company met the claim but this was some years ago and as the insurance companies are feeling the pinch these days they may have changed their policy on this.
 
You are not liable (and your insurance policy will not react) for damage to a third party unless you have been neglegent. A falling Tree unless it was clear that it was a danger to others etc for a period prior to its collapse would not be classed as neglegent.

The standard insurance policies cover damage as a result of falling trees but you will only be liable for the damage to property you have legal interest in therefore your neighbour will have no option but to make a claim on his or her own policy.

The same issue arises in a fire situation where unless there has been neglegence or malace you will not be held responsible for damage to other peoples property if your house was to go on fire and the smoke or fire was to spread to other properties. (this is also covered by statute)

the rational behind this is generally to limit the posible max liability on a policy. If you were to be liable for all of these different issues the risk would be substantially more and premiums would be also much higher.
 
Thank you Sue Ellen and kkelliher. I think your advice is correct, and that's the way the matter is going down--I believe my neighbour's insurance is coughing up.
 
I've had a similar experience where my tree fell into a neighbours garden damaging the party wall and some of their garden furniture and clothes line.
My insurance company will only pay 50% of the restructuring cost of the wall and not cover the cost of replacing the furniture and clothes line.
My neighbour has informed me that they cannot claim off their insurance company. This doesnt sound right and I feel they are pressurising me to pay up and just dont want to claim from their Ins. Co.

Is this the case that their insurance company would not pay up?

Thanks
 
I've had a similar experience where my tree fell into a neighbours garden damaging the party wall and some of their garden furniture and clothes line.
My insurance company will only pay 50% of the restructuring cost of the wall and not cover the cost of replacing the furniture and clothes line.
My neighbour has informed me that they cannot claim off their insurance company. This doesnt sound right and I feel they are pressurising me to pay up and just dont want to claim from their Ins. Co.

Is this the case that their insurance company would not pay up?

Thanks

I dont see why their insurance company wont pay up as the standard house policies cover damage to property resulting from falling trees. Once they re satisfied that your insurance company are only paying for half then they should pay the other half along with any other items that the neighbour claims for.
 
Your neighbour may be reluctant to claim on their own insurance due to adverse impact on their premium. We recently queried our house insurance charges as we deemed them to be very high - and were told it was because we had put a claim in {c€2k} in previous 2 years.
 
Thanks for the responses. Think its time to play hardball with the neighbour.
 
I would like to rrevive this tread as there must be many fallen trees which are now resting and maybe damaging other persons property. I am aware of a situation where a large number of trees just inside the boundary line fell and 99% rested on adjacent property creating substantial damage. I know the law seems to be that the injured party should claim against their own insurance but this seems unreasonable? as an avenue is blocked someone has to start clearance and would an insurance give the green light to the owner of the trees to incur this expense. Sorry if this appears "confused".
 
If no one is neglegent then it is an accident and anyone with damage must claim off their own insurance. Its the storms fault after all so nobody is at fault. The same goes for fire as if your house goes on fire accidentally and it burns down all the houses on your street everyone claims off their own insurance as otherwise it would be impossible to price risk as it must be limited.
 
Back
Top