| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sflorig
USA
24 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2004 : 14:01:18
|
After an ice storm tree limbs on the insd's property fall and land on the house damaging the gutters and roof and they also fall on the insd's fence causing damage to it.
Under the ADDITIONAL COVERAGES section of the policy it reads:
"We will also pay your reasonable expense, up to $500, for the removal from the "residence premises" of:
b. Your tree(s) felled by the peril of Weight of Ice, Snow or Sleet
provided the tree(s) damages a covered sturcture. The $500 limit is the most we will pay in any one loss regardless of the number of fallen trees."
You are presented with the following bill from Choppers Tree Service:
$200 to remove tree limbs off of house and fence
$100 cut up and chip tree debris
$500 to cut down 2 trees damaged from ice (same tree that limbs fell from that hit house and fence)
The cost to remove the limbs from the house and fence and clean up the debris is covered under the above portion of the policy.
Now, do you provide any coverage to cut down the 2 damaged trees as part of the debris removal??? Is the part of the tree that is still standing (posing a risk of falling onto the house by the way)considered part of the tree debirs ("felled tree") or only the limbs that fell? How about limbs that have not fallen and are dangling precariously over the house? |
|
|
Jim Lakes
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 15:33:15
|
Sflorig,
Under the guidelines that you gave, I only have one question, the $100.00 for chipping the trees. Is this amount for all the trees or just the ones that fell on the house? If it is the ones that fell on the house you would owe the entire bill, depending upon the carriers guidelines. Some only pay to remove the tree off the covered structure and not off the property. If it was for all trees you would only owe that portion of the $100.00 that fell on the house. The remainder would fall under the total coverage of the $500.00.
Saying that, “The cost to remove the limbs from the house and fence and clean up the debris is covered under the above portion of the policy” is not totally correct.
The removal of the tree off the house is covered under the “A” coverage and should be separated from the coverage in question. It is true that there is only $500.00 coverage for the trees in this case, however, the trees that are on the covered structure does not go against that $500.00.
As far as the limbs that are still hanging on other trees, it is the responsibility of the insured to see that they are removed to prevent further damage. If the insured has exhausted their limit, such as in this case, you should inform the insured that it is their responsibility to remove them, to protect their property.
This of course is provided that they have the coverage. All carriers that we have dealt with handle this type loss in the manner above.
I hope this answers your question and if not feel free to give me a call at the number below.
Thanks for the good question.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Lakes, RPA
V.P. RAC Catastrophe Services, Inc.
866.312.7400
|
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 17:45:15
|
I worked the ice storm in NC in Dec. 2002. Here is how the carrier I worked for interpreted that portion of the policy. I have heard different interpretations and I thought this one was particularly liberal in it's application of policy language but it was in the insured's favor so I loved it.
I was told to pay "whatever" it takes to get the fallen trees off of covered buildings and fences and set them down on the ground far enough away from the damaged property so that repairs can be made.
After the trees are off the covered structures, we were told to pay for removal up to $500 dollars, even if the trees being disposed of didn't hit covered property. In essence if on tree damaged a covered structure the door was then open for he $500 limit for tree debris disposal. Even if only 1 small tree knocked a board off of a wood fence we could pay up to $500 dollars to dispose of that tree and the 20 other trees that fell on the property without damaging anything.
My reading of the policy led me to believe that the $500 limit was only for trees that actually caused damage to covered property but I was told otherwise so I followed my instructions.
As far as trees or limbs endagering the property, there is no coverage. I had several claims in that storm that were not payable because on tree had been knocked over and was leaning against another tree or hanging over a house but had done no damage to any covered structures. To make matters worse, i had to put the insured on notice that they are now aware of an immenent danger to their property and it was up to them to do everything within their power to mitigate the danger. I seriously doubt that the company would have denied a claim if the tree fell the next day because all tree services were quite busy, but if that tree fell and damaged the house 2 years later they may.
Just some real life experiences that hopefully apply to your situation. |
|
|
|
Manmut
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 12:16:31
|
Kile,
What your carrier advised you is also my understanding of this coverage. As far as the potential hazard, I was advised by a major carrier (probably the same one) that we would apply reasonable expectations to the removal of a threatening tree. In other words, if the insured calls us to make a claim for leaning tree, and five minutes after the call the tree falls, its unreasonable to expect that they could have done anything to prevent the damage. The matter becomes a bit more gray as hours turn to days, but then less so as days become weeks. I've had more than one insured make the argument that "I couldn't get any contractors to come out and remove the tree before it fell." The argument seems reasonable a day or so after a storm, but far less so weeks after a storm. |
Patrick W. Laws |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 14:50:30
|
I am in Virginia working Isabel-lately, i came across a Virginia endorsement pertaining to policies useing the ISO forms--it clearly states "this changes the policy"
---any tree hitting a covered/insured structure is paid for from canopy to rootball--the limit is, the policy limit plus 5% if there is not enough to cover the trees. When i first came across this endorsement, I assumed it meant all policies(and rubbed my hands together vigorously:)), a mandate which all must abide by--not true!--only the ISO form policies--the rest of the Insurance Policies are at least guided by Minimum policy requirements, set out by the state of Virginia in the 1980's
--In Virginia my observation was that companies paid for the whole tree, but it didn't seem that same company always paid all even in an "upper class" neighborhood where most of the policies for the same Company should be more or less the same,i asked questions, but got alot of different answeres---so i am working it out through the Virginia Insurance Bureau-its convoluted but interesting --i will post when i learn the difinitive answere(which will only apply to the state of Virgina).
---by the way,In my experience, no Insurance Company has ever authorized Me to pay for the removal of a tree unless its on a structure in some degree--(at least touching)
happy Presidents day |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 15:08:31
|
I dont have the Virginia form. This thread is like a tree with many branchs. The states I have worked limits "tree debris" removal from premisis (lot) to $500.00 for one tree OR fifty trees.
This limit was put in after 1989 Hugo in South Carolina. North Carolina It may be in 50 states now. Why? the carriers paid out millions to remove millions of tree's and root balls. The desert states will not stand for a rate increases for tree debris.
A tree on insured property (house/Fence (sometime) is not "tree debris"; but "debris" and the reasonable cost to remove is part of the building loss. The tree itself is never insured for windstorm.
The 5% is an extension of the building coverage, and would apply IF The building hit the limit and debris other than trees were still on the property(not land or the lot)
IF the policy language was " A limit of $500.00 applys to the removal of tree{s} or parts thereof deposited on structures by wind" you would not be confused.
|
Edited by - trader on 02/22/2004 18:12:41 |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 13:38:20
|
I discoverd the following information at the Virginia State Office of the Bureau Of Insurance(BOI), in person in the Richmond Va. office(state capitol) regarding Policy,trees on covered or insured structures, and that trees removal.
---I obtained a copy of the Minimum Standard of content for the Homeowners Policy, special form-i also looked at the Basic Form, as well as the comprehensive forms -these are worded alike regarding tree removal.
NOTE---Once again, this is only for trees that are on or touching a covered/insured structure,
---Coverage-> "Appurtenant Structures" "This policy covers structures appertaining to the premises and located thereon"
---Additional Coverages-->"Debris Removal". (the following is quoted from the Minimum Standard Policy) "This policy covers expnses incurred in the removal of all debris of the property coverd hereunder occasioned by the loss thereto for which the coverage is afforded. Coverage will also be provided for the removal of fallen tres which cause damage to covered property. When the amount payable for the actual damage to the property plus the expense for the debris removal exceeds the limit of liabilty for the damaged property,an additional 5% of that limit will be available to cover that removal expense" ---
---In the aftermath of Hurricane Isabel,this issue is among the top 5 complaints to the BOI,Bureau of Insurance in Virginia--You would think the whole BOI department would have the same answere for any question question regarding tree removal-i talked to 3 people , got 2.5 different answeres[Sigh...],,,
---After checking in EXCLUSIONS, i came to the conclusion that indeed, in the State of Virginia,for any tree that damages a covered or insured propery, it's removal is paid for from the canopy to the rootball(includeing stumpgrinding)(futhermore, there is no mention of $500 limit or"up to" for tree debris removal for these same trees that fell on a stucture, because they have been completely paid for in the first place).
---I'm hoping for feedback or correction here-this issue arises on about every hurricane i have been to-i am hoping i could duplicate this effort quickly,via internet, in any state i go to. id like to get this issue resolved once and for all.
thanks |
|
|
|
De Ward
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 03:27:03
|
| I finished up in Richmond in January. I worked a few homeowners at the onset of claims and had one where the homeowner was a property adjuster. He emailed me a state website where an article was posted that is law in Virginia. It states that any and all trees that fall and damages covered property will be removed from the insured's property. There is no limit as per this article. I may have the website buried somewhere. If I run across it I will post it. |
De Ward |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 07:50:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by De Ward
There is no limit as per this article.
Surely, you're not suggesting that Virginia has thrown "policy limits" out the window? |
|
|
|
Cecil
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 08:13:32
|
| Policy limit + 5%? |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 08:16:29
|
Cecil makes a good point (policy limits plus 5% = aggregate policy limits), so I'll amend my question as follows:
Surely, you're not suggesting that Virginia has thrown "aggregate policy limits" out the window?
Thanks Cecil for keeping us on our toes around here. Cecil is one of our RPA's (Registered Professional Adjuster) on this site in case you didn't know! |
Edited by - JimF on 02/23/2004 08:18:45 |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 08:33:50
|
| Still working claims for a number of smaller companies. If the tree is on covered property then the appropriate limit applies (dwelling or other structures). Root bolls are being paid for. One company has an endorsement that provides an additional 1000 for debris removal which can be applied to trees that are down but not on any structure. Tree cutting prices are dropping sharply since the 1st of the year. |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 12:05:59
|
Virginia Minimum Policy Content for all HO policies(BASIC TO COMPREHENSIVE policies) states that for trees on stuctures, the fallen tree/trees will be removed! An additional 5% beyond policy limit is available if needed for tree removal.
---This is according to the Bureau of Insurance(B.O.I) in downtown Richmond.
---According to the B.O.I, they have lots of complaints concerning this-and the B.O.I. says they will cause the non compliant Companies to "payup" after the audit later this year.
---Thats what i have learned for the State of Virginia, it may not apply to anyone else.
good luck out there |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 12:37:50
|
Memo to mqkmrp: Can you (or anyone else) please share with us the exact policy language quotes regarding your comments that "states that for trees on structures, the fallen tree/trees will be removed".
I think it would be helpful both to compare that policy language to the ISO policy form and also to see if perhaps, you are not taking a slight bit of liberty with your interpretation of the precise language of the policy. |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 20:11:56
|
Thanks for the feedback, as i said before, I would really like to bring this to the correct conclusion.
---The website for the State of Virginia Minimum Standard of Content for a Homeowners Policy is found as follows
---Virginia B.O.I., then click on LAWS/ORDERS, Then click on INSURANCE REGULATIONS---scroll down(clickndrag) all the way to Chapter 340-then clickon the seventh line with "150" and "Special Form" at the end--look at ADDITIONAL COVERAGES.
---According to the Virgina BOI office, this is a mandate for all companies in the State of Virginia for Homeowners Policy.
---Please correct Me if Im wrong, but i think this says, "pay for the whole tree when removing from a covered structure", and if policy limits is not enough, an additonal 5% of the policy limit is available for tree debris removal.
Thanks for taking a look at this |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 22:33:34
|
Herein is the exact language from the Virginia Bureau of Insurance website related to the "minimum policy language" requirement for the HO-3 written in Virginia.
***************************************************************
1. Debris Removal.
This policy covers expenses incurred in the removal of all debris of the property covered hereunder occasioned by loss thereto for which coverage is afforded.
Coverage will also be provided for the removal of fallen trees which cause damage to covered property.
When the amount payable for the actual damage to the property plus the expense for debris removal exceeds the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5.0% of that limit of liability will be available to cover debris removal expense.
************************************************
I will offer my suggestion that you are misreading as well as misunderstanding what this language says and means as it relates to tree removal coverage, tree debris removal coverage, and limits available for each.
As an example, the Virginia Bureau of Insurance mandatory language does not mention "root balls" nor does it mention "whole trees" and in my opinion, you are reading words, meanings and conclusions into this specific language which does not exist nor was intended.
As well, I think you are also confusing debris removal with the similar yet entirely different concept of tree debris removal.
I will concede however, that the language is sorely lacking in definitive clarity, and thus opens the policy to some ambiguity in interpretation and application. |
Edited by - JimF on 02/23/2004 22:53:29 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Tree Debris Removal
Forum Locked
