Forums

There's a whole lotta "hurt" in the world.
With impartial, unemotional clarity, the adjuster surgically removed the non-payable portion of the loss from the loss settlement.

Leland, as you know from your time with State Farm, they (and many of the better carriers) might consider the "amount beyond a special limt" portion of the loss as a damage resulting from a covered peril that will go toward the deductible. There was an old thread on that subject, absorbing the deductible. Sometimes that aspect can help a lot.

I am not referring to "bury" the deductible, or anything unethical. It is like a $10,000 item that is stolen, but subject to a special limit of $2,500. It's a covered loss, and the payment is $2,500 but the deductible is not taken. It is absorbed by the amount of COVERED damage beyond a special limit.

I remember a claim I had years ago where an 18 wheeler in a parking lot took out a big tree.  We got estimates for big bucks to replace a full grown tree, as a 3rd party claim.  Next year there was a little seedling in it's place - nobody plants a huge tree back, but it has value.

Gotcha on all that - and again nice to see you at the NFIP thing.

So many things in life are negotiable. Some of this will always depend on the guy sitting at the desk who writes the checks. We make our recommendations.

What is odd to me, is that I report to so many different carriers over the years and watch them respond differently. I had one pay a water damage that had been leaking for years, another has very strict interpretation of long-term at 14 days.   Some carriers are deeply concerned about customer satisfaction, and some aren't.

But on the trees, for first party, 99.9% of claims examiners would not consider a dime over the special limit. Beyond that it can help absorb the deductible, but they can't issue payment beyond that special limit.

Caring deeply about customer satisfaction is not a bad thing, until the provisions of the policy are stretched too far and too often, and a precedent is established.  Just thinking out loud, what if it was a hammock stretched between 2 trees and they burn down.  A hammock between 2 shady trees is certainly alot nicer though than if it's between 2 posts, and it is not a structure like your example.  In that type of situation, there would not be any debate, I'd hope...and the presence of a treehouse shouldn't change the interpretation of limitations placed on trees.  I think it was said best, when said let the carrier/check-writer decide and then live with it.  It's little things like that that auditors stumble across and like to make an issue of.         

One issue that needs to be addressed as well is the value of all "other structures" on the property for as we all recall coverage limits are applied proportionately to the value of all "other structures" on the property. Any applicable deductible would easily be absorbed by the tree loss.

Usually 10% of the main structure limit is available for non-scheduled other structures (and of course that amount can be increased for an increased premium).

If the main dwelling is insured to value, and they exhaust the 10% available to other structures, then that is all they will receive. In that scenario I have not seen a co-insurance penalty applied, or any proportional adjustment. Pay the loss up to the limit for other structures.  I have had many claims where the main house was insured to value, and the other structures were grossly underinsured.  It's common.  But there isn't a penalty for it until you simply run out of money and the 10% limit is gone. 

Some Farm and Commercial policies will allow zero for non-scheduled structures, but that's different.

I have worked commercial claims for car dealerships where you count the inventory and pay percentages based on current value...   but that wouldn't be a tree claim scenario.

Auto hits large tree fights will always be around on 3rd party liability claims. In 04 I worked the West Palm Beach loss on the Zoo and it was a zoo. Saw something I had never seen before many palm and ficus trees were blown over with the large root ball exposed. A large tree company cut most of the canopy limbs back by about 1/3 used a square spreader bar with a 150 ton rubber tire crane with a zillion web slings and set the trees back up and they all lived and seem to flourish from the "root stimulation". No tree coverage and all this was on their dime. My tall 4 in 4 story.

A great example of how people become more "Reasonable" when it is their money that is on the line.

If those trees were blown over because of an explosion at your chemical plant next to the zoo, I'm sure the same owner would be asserting they were a total loss.

If the agent wrote the thing up, and it was the scheduled property, I'm OK with it. The intended use is no longer to fly, like your car parts made into a couch - It is no longer a "car".

On the stump used as a foundation member - well that's just kind of a bad idea on the part of the architect...  better make sure it doesn't start growing or decaying.  I would bid to R&R the damaged footing, and put back something of the same functional value.  I would not "deny" that part of the building because it used to be a tree, if in fact the building was supported by it.    Some betterment may apply...

On the tree house thing, I still look at the "improvements" as separate from the tree.  If the agent and Insured are working together to make sure his ass is covered in the event of a total burn-down, maybe they can schedule the thing or work out a solution BEFORE the claim.

If I get that after the fact, and it is a standard ISO form, he is gonna get the tree limit + cost of improvements.  And the fact that he can't put it back just like it was is really no concern, it can't sway my judgment in that example.  It's not like "increased dwelling limit to ensure replacement" for the main house.  It's a freak'in tree in the yard, and if the guy has that much money to build an elaborate structure in the tree, then my number on the check arriving to his mailbox is not going to impact his quality of life.

We saw people without a home at Katrina and no ALE with the flood policy - and we would like to have done more but the policy has it's coverage and that's all she wrote.  Same with the living tree out in the yard, and I would apply the same logic to a tree in an atrium that was exposed to direct rain from the outdoors, regardless of wall positioning around it.

It's open to the sky.

Now sir, I am gonna be nice and not name the mortgage company on this $500 check for your tree, and again want to remind you that we have not taken a deductible for this loss due to the amount of value beyond the $500. 

Yeah, they didn't want to see tires and axles under the thing, has to have permanent foundation. If someone went to the effort to make a very permanent foundation, I think an argument could be made for coverage.

Building
A structure with two or more outside rigid walls and a fully secured roof, that is affixed to a permanent site; or A manufactured home (also known as a mobile home is a structure built on a permanent chassis, transported to its site in one or more sections, and affixed to a permanent foundation); or A travel trailer without wheels, built on a chassis and affixed to a permanent foundation, that is regulated under the community's floodplain management and building ordinances and laws. Building does not mean a gas or liquid storage tank or a recreational vehicle, park trailer or other similar vehicle except as described above.

http://nfipnextgen.com/acronym.htm

re: Your link above... I wonder if he will still be smiling when that hot San Diego sun cooks the tenant out of the tin can on the 4th of July

Keep the weekend lively Bob, An Inland Marine policy could be written on a tree house for all risk, but not an HO-3 my opine. On the inside atrim the plants would be UPP . Another question if fallout from rain gets into the house is it, surface water or a flood are both or neither????? hmmmm

I hear ya Ray. I think Leland is working fire claims - imagine if that tree was blown over by wind, and didn't hit the building or any other covered property. I agree that the HO-3 wouldn't pay for the tree, it's not all risk for trees. Bizarre thread. Maybe it would be covered if it damaged the structure that was falling down with the tree... but that's not the intent of the policy.

Yeah, I remember that now. You are right. The point is the permanent foundation.

That flood policy is the strangest collection of wrinkles, written by a committee of bureaucrats. They cover refrigerator as a "building" item coverage "A", same with blinds but zero coverage for other window treatment, has to be blinds...

The tree would not be an acceptable foundation, by code. We therefore owe policy limit on the tree ($500.00) and the amount to replace the tree house structure, as in the other structure coverage. Removal of the tree house debris would also be covered, but not of the tree debris or remnants.