It's going to be very windy Wednesday Night ..

[Gandahar]

I was looking at the very large fir trees planted by my neighbour on a rather steep slope with little soil in it .. right next to my cars, so got to worrying

If one fell over and flattened my Ferrari, sorry Toyota stbox, which insurance company would pay? I did some searches on here, couldn't quite get a similar scenario but it looks like if the trees are healthy it would be mine to claim on. Presumably my car insurance rather than house. Either way I would probably get screwed.

Has anyone on here had to claim for a parked car damaged by trees?

Looks like I can go and trim his trees on my side, but not cut them down. I then have to give him the branches back, or dump them on his drive. Or maybe that is not the done thing. The law seems rather arcane altoughter to be honest. I can imagine a lot of people have got angry over the years about our leafy friends.

I guess I better talk to him. He put them in to reduce road noise, then the council put in low noise tarmac, so now they are just a rather tall, and getting taller, hazard to my lambo.

Problem with these fir tree types is that they have shallow roots and don't lose leaves, so they have a big area to be hit by the wind. Our 60 foot one fell down at the start of last year. Direct Line paid out hardly anything, nothing for the fence, measly amount to get rid of the tree, nothing for the stump ..

Not that I am unduly worrying about these ones.

Regards

Mr Paranoid.

[keith2.2]

When my uncles roof tiles came off in wind and landed on the bonnet and roof of his car, the car insurance wouldn't pay out because it was the house that caused the problem. The House insurance wouldn't pay out because it was an "act of god".

[L1OFF]

your car insurance.

[HD Adam]

keith2.2 said:

When my uncles roof tiles came off in wind and landed on the bonnet and roof of his car, the car insurance wouldn't pay out because it was the house that caused the problem. The House insurance wouldn't pay out because it was an "act of god".

I had that about 25 years ago when my house got hit by lightning.

I told the assessor that they could see me in court then where they would be welcome to prove the existence of God and that he personally had it in for me on that day.

They paid up.

[balls-out]

I would have thought your neighbour has a duty to ensure that these aren't dangerous and if damaged is caused he is liable, for which he would expect to use his household insurance?

[rallycross]

you will have to claim on your own car insurance - but the good news is, it might never happen!

[over_the_hill]

keith2.2 said:

When my uncles roof tiles came off in wind and landed on the bonnet and roof of his car, the car insurance wouldn't pay out because it was the house that caused the problem. The House insurance wouldn't pay out because it was an "act of god".

I am ready to be corrected but I don't think "act of god" exclusions exist anymore.

[over_the_hill]

Gandahar said:

If one fell over and flattened my Ferrari, sorry Toyota stbox

is this yours



If a tree fell on that it would do it a favour

[balls-out]

rallycross said:

you will have to claim on your own car insurance - but the good news is, it might never happen!

So if you are TPFT you have no recourse? I find this surprising, so I did a little googling and it looks like that is the correct.

however

Mansfield District Council said:

Q: I believe my neighbour's tree to be dangerous. What can I do?
A: The definition of 'dangerous' is ambiguous. A tree is not dangerous because it is tall or has a wide, spreading crown. Before taking any action you should contact a specialist tree consultant of contractor. Once you are sure of your facts, you should notify your neighbour of your concerns and ask that he/she address the problem. If he/she does not and some damage accrues from this negligence then you may take action against the tree owner through the courts where it may be possible to obtain an injunction requiring the tree owner to take whatever action is necessary to remedy the problem.

I _think_ the key is down to whether it was unexpected. If the neighbour has not taken reasonable care and failed to protect against something likely to happen, its down to his negligence. If the tree just falls over, then I think then it is your problem to sort with your insurance.

[Mr GrimNasty]

HD Adam said:

keith2.2 said:

When my uncles roof tiles came off in wind and landed on the bonnet and roof of his car, the car insurance wouldn't pay out because it was the house that caused the problem. The House insurance wouldn't pay out because it was an "act of god".

I had that about 25 years ago when my house got hit by lightning.

I told the assessor that they could see me in court then where they would be welcome to prove the existence of God and that he personally had it in for me on that day.

They paid up.

Load of rubbish. Had nothing to do with them paying up, they were either liable or they weren't (but they may have acted out of good will or expediency).

The term is well established in case law and valid (along with variations thereof usually in Latin) and applicable to all insurance contracts (can be modified by explicit statements of course).

A few ignorant people will point you to links saying there is no such thing, on the ABI website for instance, but they don't understand that this is an unqualified out of context bit of insurance industry public relations spiel, and the same site contains more accurate info. confirming the correct legal situation.

[callyman]

keith2.2 said:

When my uncles roof tiles came off in wind and landed on the bonnet and roof of his car, the car insurance wouldn't pay out because it was the house that caused the problem. The House insurance wouldn't pay out because it was an "act of god".

And they'd be right if they could prove there's a god.

'Act of god' is a very convenient cop out.

[toddygti]

over_the_hill said:

I am ready to be corrected but I don't think "act of god" exclusions exist anymore.

You are quite right. It doesn't.

Specific events such as Wind / Hail / Quakes are all individually defined.


In essence to answer the original posters query, he would have to claim from his car insurers unless he can prove that his neighbour was negligent in his planting / maintaining of the trees. His Home policy may not cover them either depending on the Policy so if negligence was proved you could end up having to take him to court for the costs if they were to refuse to accept liability.

[Issi]

Absolutely - There is no exclusions for Acts of God in Insurance policies.

If the tree was rotten and was hanging over your car, and you'd advised the neighbour of your concerns, then you may be able to seek some recovery from him should it inevitably fall on your car.

If however a storm force wind blew the tree down, then you would have to claim on your car insurance.

[herewego]

If the trees are on your boundary and resemble a hedge then you can check out the hedge regulations. Max. height 2m if I remember correctly.

[Osinjak]

over_the_hill said:

is this yours



If a tree fell on that it would do it a favour

Quality! Made oi chuckle.

[750turbo]

Bit windy here...

[thismonkeyhere]

over_the_hill said:

is this yours



If a tree fell on that it would do it a favour

So st it's awesome.

[lbc]

thismonkeyhere said:

over_the_hill said:

is this yours



If a tree fell on that it would do it a favour

So st it's awesome.

I thought it looked like that because a tree had fallen on it.

[LoonR1]

callyman said:

keith2.2 said:

When my uncles roof tiles came off in wind and landed on the bonnet and roof of his car, the car insurance wouldn't pay out because it was the house that caused the problem. The House insurance wouldn't pay out because it was an "act of god".

And they'd be right if they could prove there's a god.

'Act of god' is a very convenient cop out.

As overthehill has already pointed out there is no such clause.

The story by Keith is nice and funny I'm sure, but complete and utter bullst. Every time we get a bit of wind, everyone starts bleating about Act of God as a way of not paying, but it simply doesn't exist. Either you are covered or you're not.

If your insurance says "you are covered, but not for dmaage caused by falling trees" then the insurer would be right not to lay, but as no such clause exists in any motor insurance spoil you that I've ever seen, then they would all pay. Of course someone may have a policy that excludes damage by falling trees, but that would, be an individual clause due to past claims experience. Rather than Carte Blanche on a policy.

Here it is in black and white form the Association of British Insurers that no such clause exists:

Myth number 10

https://www.abi.org.uk/News/News-releases/2010/08/...

[LoonR1]

To answer the OP's question, his insurance will pay if he is Fully Comp. He certainly would not be claimin gon his own home policy, especially ifi t was his neighbours trees.

To have any chance of success of claiming off the neighbour he would have to prove they were negligent in their behaviour. That's highly unlikely to succeed with a healthy tree that blows down in gale force winds. There is no expectation that he should chop the trees down just to be safe, unless he knows they are diseased, or some similar problem with them.