Who is liable for this damage to greenhouse/fence etc.
Discussion
Our neighbours tree fell down last month, the tree was rotten and broke at the base, the tree was in their garden although some of the branches used to overhang our garden. I don’t think the neighbours had any work done on the tree since they moved in (a few years ago), which would have probably prevented this happening. The tree has damaged at least one fence panel and completely destroyed our greenhouse. It is difficult to assess any further damage (for example to items within the greenhouse) until the tree is removed, we have cleared the broken glass and fenced off the area to prevent our dogs from getting injured by the glass.
The neighbours were arranging for a tree surgeon to remove the tree and I assumed that their insurance would be paying for this and also paying for the replacement of our fence and greenhouse however they have now said that their insurance company has said that won’t be paying for their tree destroying our fence and greenhouse and that we need to claim via our own insurance, which I don’t think is correct.
Any general insurance experts on here? I have emailed my insurers today but just after some PH views too.
Thanks in advance.
The neighbours were arranging for a tree surgeon to remove the tree and I assumed that their insurance would be paying for this and also paying for the replacement of our fence and greenhouse however they have now said that their insurance company has said that won’t be paying for their tree destroying our fence and greenhouse and that we need to claim via our own insurance, which I don’t think is correct.
Any general insurance experts on here? I have emailed my insurers today but just after some PH views too.
Thanks in advance.
Generally, you'd have to prove negligence to prove liability.
That might mean showing they had reason to suspect the tree would come down.
Trees fall down it's nature.
In general, you insure your own stuff and claim on your own insurance.
The paperwork to argue about liability will easily exceed the cost of a greenhouse.
That might mean showing they had reason to suspect the tree would come down.
Trees fall down it's nature.
In general, you insure your own stuff and claim on your own insurance.
The paperwork to argue about liability will easily exceed the cost of a greenhouse.
The neighbour and their insurers are broadly correct assuming they weren’t negligent in their tree husbandry.
Now, you may think that they must have been negligent because the tree fell down, but that’s not the test. The test is along the lines that would a reasonable non-expert predict that the tree was in danger of falling. If not, then they weren’t negligent and you are responsible for covering your own losses, and that’s what your insurance is for.
If the tree showed increasing signs of illness, had increased its lean, or various other indicators, then you can assert negligence on their behalf for failing to take notice and act on these signs. Equally, if you claim this then the counter-argument would be why didn’t you raise any concerns of your own if the risk was apparent.
Have a chat with your insurers.
Now, you may think that they must have been negligent because the tree fell down, but that’s not the test. The test is along the lines that would a reasonable non-expert predict that the tree was in danger of falling. If not, then they weren’t negligent and you are responsible for covering your own losses, and that’s what your insurance is for.
If the tree showed increasing signs of illness, had increased its lean, or various other indicators, then you can assert negligence on their behalf for failing to take notice and act on these signs. Equally, if you claim this then the counter-argument would be why didn’t you raise any concerns of your own if the risk was apparent.
Have a chat with your insurers.
Not an expert at all but this is my thoughts/experience, would be interested to know if this fits with anybody with more knowledge!
We've had to do some research into this owing to a neighbours tree getting dangerously close to falling, and not seeming to be interested in pruning etc. Short version is that I ended up checking our own insurance would cover damage etc. Most policies ask questions around trees that fall within so many metres of the house/boundary.
However, if the tree was already dead then really I'd expect my insurer to think about pursuing the neighbour since possible negligence is surely a factor. If a tree is dead, you've got to think its only a matter of time before it comes down. A tree like the one in your picture is so obviously dead I would expect your insurer to back you. Prepared to be wrong on this though!
We've had to do some research into this owing to a neighbours tree getting dangerously close to falling, and not seeming to be interested in pruning etc. Short version is that I ended up checking our own insurance would cover damage etc. Most policies ask questions around trees that fall within so many metres of the house/boundary.
However, if the tree was already dead then really I'd expect my insurer to think about pursuing the neighbour since possible negligence is surely a factor. If a tree is dead, you've got to think its only a matter of time before it comes down. A tree like the one in your picture is so obviously dead I would expect your insurer to back you. Prepared to be wrong on this though!
Antony Moxey said:
You might ask why the neighbours were employing a tree surgeon to remove the tree. Was it because they didn't like it, or was it because the tree was about to fall down and they needed it cutting down sharpish?
I think the neighbours were employing a tree surgeon to remove the tree after it fell down rather than before.ralphrj said:
Antony Moxey said:
You might ask why the neighbours were employing a tree surgeon to remove the tree. Was it because they didn't like it, or was it because the tree was about to fall down and they needed it cutting down sharpish?
I think the neighbours were employing a tree surgeon to remove the tree after it fell down rather than before.ralphrj said:
Antony Moxey said:
You might ask why the neighbours were employing a tree surgeon to remove the tree. Was it because they didn't like it, or was it because the tree was about to fall down and they needed it cutting down sharpish?
I think the neighbours were employing a tree surgeon to remove the tree after it fell down rather than before.A few years back our neighbour had a bbq next to our adjoining fence, belonging to us. Unsurprisingly, the fence caught fire, as did our shed and all its contents, then the back fence and most of the grass. Luckily we were out, so we missed the devastation, five fire engines, numerous Police cars (one of which was driven by the chap who was buying our house and we were just about to exchange contracts with), road closures and a mention on the local radio news. Neighbours insurance said we needed to claim from our insurance, as the damage was on our property. Our insurance said neighbours insurance should pay as their bbq caused the damage.
Luckily our neighbour was a decent chap, and as our buyer was threatening to withhold £500 unless we sorted the damage, he got a chap in to replace the fence and shed, and also replaced all of the contents of the shed (mower, strimmer etc). I assume, unless you have a helpful neighbour and/or insurance company, there will be an awful lot of backwards and forwards until someone pays up.
Luckily our neighbour was a decent chap, and as our buyer was threatening to withhold £500 unless we sorted the damage, he got a chap in to replace the fence and shed, and also replaced all of the contents of the shed (mower, strimmer etc). I assume, unless you have a helpful neighbour and/or insurance company, there will be an awful lot of backwards and forwards until someone pays up.
Surely the approach is to tell your insurance company and let them deal with it. If they feel it's the fault of the neighbour, then they'll argue with their insurance company, and you and your neighbours can remain in a positive relationship.
Edited by Hoofy on Friday 10th April 12:03
Hoofy said:
Surely the approach is to tell your insurance company and let them deal with it. If they feel it's the fault of the neighbour, then they'll argue with their insurance company, and you and your neighbours can remain in a positive relationship.
Is house insurance similar to car insurance in that even a "no fault" claim can lead to increased future premiums? Edited by Hoofy on Friday 10th April 12:03
If so it is in the OP's interest to make sure it is the neighbours who pay, whether personally or via their insurers.
GasEngineer said:
Hoofy said:
Surely the approach is to tell your insurance company and let them deal with it. If they feel it's the fault of the neighbour, then they'll argue with their insurance company, and you and your neighbours can remain in a positive relationship.
Is house insurance similar to car insurance in that even a "no fault" claim can lead to increased future premiums? Edited by Hoofy on Friday 10th April 12:03
If so it is in the OP's interest to make sure it is the neighbours who pay, whether personally or via their insurers.
Edit: oh, I see what you're getting at. Well, you're right, assuming they are willing to budge on their position!
Edited by Hoofy on Friday 10th April 12:54
The appropriately named Out In The Shed is bang on target.
Surely the neighbours/their insurers will at least get their tree cut up and removed?
After that, I'd be cautious about making an insurance claim. In a similar situation our insurers were a complete pita to deal with and, of course, paid out the bare minimum. BUT the following year there was a big hike on our premium because we had made a claim. Over the next few years the insurer effectively charged us for everything they had paid out.
Surely the neighbours/their insurers will at least get their tree cut up and removed?
After that, I'd be cautious about making an insurance claim. In a similar situation our insurers were a complete pita to deal with and, of course, paid out the bare minimum. BUT the following year there was a big hike on our premium because we had made a claim. Over the next few years the insurer effectively charged us for everything they had paid out.
Thanks for all the replies, I appreciate the comments.
Just to clarify I have emailed my insurers with pictures and asked them who is liable and whether I need to start a claim with them or if they're going to argue it out with the other insurers. If it's anything like car insurance I'm probably already stuffed as they will log it as a claim even if the other insurers end up admitting liability.
We get on well with those neighbours so I don't want to fall out with them. Obviously I was mistaken in assuming that their insurance would automatically cover it as it was their tree.
interestingly about 10 years ago, maybe more but prior to these neighbours moving in, a branch came off the same tree and wrecked the previous greenhouse in the same place. I claimed through our insurance as the branch was overhanging our land and, technically, it was probably my job to keep it pruned, we have had the overhanging branches pruned back since then a couple of times to stop it happening again but obviously we can't just chop down someone else's tree, although I'm pretty sure we told them that it needed attending to.
Just to clarify I have emailed my insurers with pictures and asked them who is liable and whether I need to start a claim with them or if they're going to argue it out with the other insurers. If it's anything like car insurance I'm probably already stuffed as they will log it as a claim even if the other insurers end up admitting liability.
We get on well with those neighbours so I don't want to fall out with them. Obviously I was mistaken in assuming that their insurance would automatically cover it as it was their tree.
interestingly about 10 years ago, maybe more but prior to these neighbours moving in, a branch came off the same tree and wrecked the previous greenhouse in the same place. I claimed through our insurance as the branch was overhanging our land and, technically, it was probably my job to keep it pruned, we have had the overhanging branches pruned back since then a couple of times to stop it happening again but obviously we can't just chop down someone else's tree, although I'm pretty sure we told them that it needed attending to.
There was a thread on here a few weeks ago on similar. The relevant case law is referenced in it.
ETA: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The issue is going to be whether or not the homeowner undertook any inspections (they can do this themselves in the first instance) and whether any damage/decay should have been apparent.
There are cases out there where hidden damage/decay has meant that the owner of the tree was not liable.
ETA: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The issue is going to be whether or not the homeowner undertook any inspections (they can do this themselves in the first instance) and whether any damage/decay should have been apparent.
There are cases out there where hidden damage/decay has meant that the owner of the tree was not liable.
Edited by LooneyTunes on Friday 10th April 13:24
I had a tree go over and land on my neighbours shed, he informed me as i didnt notice as its out the way of veiw.
Went round and it needed the roof replacing some lap panels and some trim, im hands on so put a new roof on it board and felt replaced the trim and lap panels and gave it a lick of paint and replaced the fence panel it took out we still get on.
Went round and it needed the roof replacing some lap panels and some trim, im hands on so put a new roof on it board and felt replaced the trim and lap panels and gave it a lick of paint and replaced the fence panel it took out we still get on.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff