Tree has Fallen on my Porsche while visiting family's apt
Discussion
If you try it on with the building insurers they will know that you are not talking to your own insurance company for a good reason. They will also not want to deal with you directly because you don't know anything about insurance, whereas your insurer does.
They may well identify your insurer and notify them, as you are obliged to do. Your insurer will sort the repair and recovery their loss from any relevant insurer.
More likely you'll be given the run around because it's trivial to deny negligence and force you to lawyer up.
Either way your best bet is to inform your insurer.
They may well identify your insurer and notify them, as you are obliged to do. Your insurer will sort the repair and recovery their loss from any relevant insurer.
More likely you'll be given the run around because it's trivial to deny negligence and force you to lawyer up.
Either way your best bet is to inform your insurer.
swisstoni said:
That branch has no foliage on it at a time when everything is in full leaf.
I can’t see the state of the tree it fell off, but it was clear that that branch, at least, was dead before it fell off.
Good spot.I can’t see the state of the tree it fell off, but it was clear that that branch, at least, was dead before it fell off.
Are you the secret love-child of Sherlock Holmes & Capability Brown?
I parked in a ‘well known’ hotel car park in Cambridge a few years ago. Just overlooking the ‘green’. Storm. Tree branch broke off and dented roof and others had scratched paint. Got nowhere - Act of God - and had it fixed at my cost. Trying to prove trees neglected- advised legal cost would easily outweigh fixing roof. Good luck.
evil.edna said:
swisstoni said:
That branch has no foliage on it at a time when everything is in full leaf.
I can’t see the state of the tree it fell off, but it was clear that that branch, at least, was dead before it fell off.
Good spot.I can’t see the state of the tree it fell off, but it was clear that that branch, at least, was dead before it fell off.
Are you the secret love-child of Sherlock Holmes & Capability Brown?
GT9 said:
swisstoni said:
It’s just elementary.
Are we looking at the same picture?The main stem that has broken has about a dozen large branches growing off it with about a million leaves attached.
The break does however look to be at a point where there was some local weakness/rotting.
This is simples. Either prove the tree was decayed or even better get your legal team on your insurance to prove it was decayed and the owner of the tree is liable.
£5k excess is not relevant - you wouldn't have ticked that option if you could not afford that level of excess.If the owner of the tree is found liable your excess is refunded.
£5k excess is not relevant - you wouldn't have ticked that option if you could not afford that level of excess.If the owner of the tree is found liable your excess is refunded.
OnTheBreadline said:
Stone02 said:
Hi all,
scratching the bonnet and a few marks... although causing £5000+ worth of damage to my car.
That's a very high quote for some paint. 5 grand would buy a new bonnet, painted, from Porsche. scratching the bonnet and a few marks... although causing £5000+ worth of damage to my car.
Hard to tell from your bizarrely crap blurry photo but it looks like it could be ash and if so may well have Ash dieback disease in which case the landowners would have some responsibility for ensuring the public's safety and removing or making the tree safe.
Pretty hard to tell anything from that pic though
Pretty hard to tell anything from that pic though
swisstoni said:
GT9 said:
swisstoni said:
It’s just elementary.
Are we looking at the same picture?The main stem that has broken has about a dozen large branches growing off it with about a million leaves attached.
The break does however look to be at a point where there was some local weakness/rotting.
The estate Dan prove that they weren’t negligent by showing that they have a regular system of the trees to show that they weren’t dangerous. I’m not well versed as to how regular those inspections have to be with trees. If they can’t provide these, they’d likely be negligent.
Any signs precluding claims for parking on the property can’t preclude the negligence of the owner of the land.
Any signs precluding claims for parking on the property can’t preclude the negligence of the owner of the land.
SSBB said:
OnTheBreadline said:
Stone02 said:
Hi all,
scratching the bonnet and a few marks... although causing £5000+ worth of damage to my car.
That's a very high quote for some paint. 5 grand would buy a new bonnet, painted, from Porsche. scratching the bonnet and a few marks... although causing £5000+ worth of damage to my car.
In fairness to the OP I can well imagine a couple of damaged panels on a new Porsche adding up to some vaguely ridiculous figure.
Bennet said:
As someone with several large trees on their property, I've informally looked into this several times.
It's not at all clear cut that your fallen tree = your liability.
It's more that the OP (or whoever) would have to demonstrate negligence on behalf of the owner - e.g. ignoring obvious signs of rot or disease. As I understand it, no negligence = no liability. Sometimes trees fall without any obvious signs of any problem beforehand.
There's no legal requirement to have your trees surveyed once per year, or whatever. I gather that typically, folks in the OP's position end up claiming on their car insurance. Random damage from windfall is a great example of why we all need car insurance, and why we all need to make sure our excess is a figure we can afford to pay.
IANALbeads.
I also had a good look into it when we moved as our garden has a few large trees, one of which is basically on the fence line next to a public car park. My conclusion was similar to yours. I had a tree surgeon in to have a look, while he was chopping down one, just to make sure there was nothing obviously wrong. I'm not getting him back every year or whatever though It's not at all clear cut that your fallen tree = your liability.
It's more that the OP (or whoever) would have to demonstrate negligence on behalf of the owner - e.g. ignoring obvious signs of rot or disease. As I understand it, no negligence = no liability. Sometimes trees fall without any obvious signs of any problem beforehand.
There's no legal requirement to have your trees surveyed once per year, or whatever. I gather that typically, folks in the OP's position end up claiming on their car insurance. Random damage from windfall is a great example of why we all need car insurance, and why we all need to make sure our excess is a figure we can afford to pay.
IANALbeads.
My first car was written off my a falling tree. I was 17 so a claim would have had a massive impact. I was parked on a public road and the tree was from within a school grounds. The school insurance covered the cost of replacing the car (less than the damage to your bonnet!) as it was deemed that the tree was rotten, had been in dangerous state for some time, and they were negligent for not having had it checked for so long. Had it fallen the other way it would have gone straight into the junior school classrooms 😬
_Mja_ said:
This is simples. Either prove the tree was decayed or even better get your legal team on your insurance to prove it was decayed and the owner of the tree is liable.
£5k excess is not relevant - you wouldn't have ticked that option if you could not afford that level of excess.If the owner of the tree is found liable your excess is refunded.
£5000 excess, £5000 + repair cost. How much is the + ? Is it £200 or £10,000 ? £5k excess is not relevant - you wouldn't have ticked that option if you could not afford that level of excess.If the owner of the tree is found liable your excess is refunded.
Edited by fred bloggs on Saturday 25th June 10:23
ncjones said:
My first car was written off my a falling tree. I was 17 so a claim would have had a massive impact. I was parked on a public road and the tree was from within a school grounds. The school insurance covered the cost of replacing the car (less than the damage to your bonnet!) as it was deemed that the tree was rotten, had been in dangerous state for some time, and they were negligent for not having had it checked for so long. Had it fallen the other way it would have gone straight into the junior school classrooms ??
Was that in Hampshire?I'd not be surprised if the knew the tree had a problem and there was a paper trail saying they were considering what to do about it....
People need to realise that insurance companies are not obsessive about arguing the rights and wrongs of small claims like £5k.
They'd rather pay out and move on.
paulrockliffe said:
If you try it on with the building insurers they will know that you are not talking to your own insurance company for a good reason. They will also not want to deal with you directly because you don't know anything about insurance, whereas your insurer does.
Anyone is entitled to claim directly from a third party insurer, and the third party doesn't have the option of only dealing with other insurers. They have to deal with whoever makes a claim against them. The reason the OP doesn't want to go thru his own insurance is none of the tp insurer's business, be it a good reason or not. The OP could have had no insurance, and been driving illegally. He would still be entitled to put in a claim for his damage to the tree owner's liability insurers, and if the OP can prove negligence, then the tp insurers would have to pay out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff