Insurance says no "act of God"

[Gary Prentice]

2 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

Is it not?, only if I was a judge its exactly how I'd look at the problem..   and if I think along those lines, so would a judge... I'm sure of it.

I'm lost for words, I really am.

[eggsarascal]

20 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I'm lost for words, I really am.

You've got stamina though, you lasted longer than I did. Well done.

[Richard 1234]

Well of course the tree owner has regularly checked the tree and not seen anything wrong. They have discharged their duty of care and have not been negligent.
 
The tree owner hasn't checked the tree which has lots of huge brackets growing out of it at eye level. They have not discharged their duty of care and have been negligent.
 
The tree owner is responsible for their tree. This is why landowners spend lots of money having their trees inspected regularly. The bicycle/car owner isn't responsible for someone elses tree.

Does the average person know when a tree is about to fail? (Excepting massive cracked trunks/limbs!)

[Mark Bolam]

Edward stop being so bloody sensible.

This was just getting good.

[Stubby]

2 hours ago, Vespasian said:

Is it not?, only if I was a judge its exactly how I'd look at the problem..

T.F. your not .

[daltontrees]

14 hours ago, Jon Heuch said:

The simple answer to your question is that what is covered and what is excluded in an insurance contract depends on what is in the contract and how it is phrased. Rather than me just copy you would be as well to look up Act of God on Wikipedia...it gives a good case (flooding) where the possibility of an act of god is the prime reason for you taking out insurance in the first place.

 

With regards to trees falling on buildings your house insurance may cover your house but is less likely to cover your shed; if your tree falls on your neighbour's shed it will be the liability clause in your contents insurance  (yes!) that is likely to cover your neighbour's claim and your legal cover that might assist you in fighting any liability if you didn't have contents cover.

Well, a bit of selective copying of Wikipedia could help explain the issue.

 

What is an Act of God? Wikipedia has two useful definitions derived from case law. The first is from England. It is an occurence

1. which involves no human agency
2. which is not realistically possible to guard against
3. which is due directly and exclusively to natural causes and
4. which could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, plans, and care.

The second one is from Scots law and is more useful I think because it encapsulates the issue of whether someone is to blame for an Act of God.

 

"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them."

 

Scots law also subsumes Acts of God within what I think is  a less emotive term "Damnum Fatale" which literally means "loss/damage ordained by fate" and codified in Scots law as  “a loss arising from inevitable accident, such as no human prudence can prevent; — such, for example, as the losses occasioned by storms or tempests, lightning, floods . . . or . . . by any calamity falling within the legal description of an act of God” . It keeps God right out of it.

 

It is fair to say this is a very old concept of law, and Vespasian cannot be excused for not knowing of it since it predates his spell as emperor by at least 100 years as I think it was addressed by Cicero by at least 40BC. And the Romans at least initially didn't embrace the christian concept of a single God. Rather than relying on the unseen hand of God as the agent of accidents, they just saw that some things just happened that couldn't have been foreseen, or rather needn't have been foreseen by (in flatyre's case) the tree owner. Or by the owner of the shed, I should add for completeness.

 

And most improtantly of all, there is no legal liability to pay for the cost of putting right damnum fatale. Thousands of years of common law from all around the world have arrived at this same necessary conclusion, so that we can all get on with life without paranoic obsession with what might befall us or our neighbours.

 

 

 

[daltontrees]

I am convinced that Rylands v Fetcher has no relevance to this insurance business, if anyone wants to know why, I will explain.

 

The key here is what an insurance policy says. It is usual for storm damage to be covered by insurance, that is to say damage caused to the insured property. It is not the same as damage caused to someone else's property by your property. And htat's what is happenign when a branch falls off a tree, across a boundary and onto someone else's land.

 

It's not even that clear, an by now flatyre and others will have found that insurers will deem such occurrences as Acts of God whether they are arguably storm damage.

 

And in a rather oxymoronic twist of the tale, building insurance policies normally include public liability insurance, which means that if the offending tree was in poor condition such that damage to a neighbour's property should have been foreseen and avoided, the insurer would probably pay out.

 

Here's where we can leave it. The law excuses someone for damage caused by freak occurrences. A lot of insurance policies use this to exclude the insurer's liability. The only solution is to check the wording of your policy and if it doesn't cover you or your neighbour to your satisfaction, get a policy that does. Policies differ, seek one out that isn't a sham. Ask anyone on the street whether damage caused by a tree coming down in a gale is the sort of thing that should be covered by building insurance and they will say yes.  But it only does if you buy a policy that says that, and you will probably have to pay more for a good policy. Most policies don't. I changed mine last year because my old one was a con, I told the insures to shove it up their axa, and I got a new one . Insures are very capable at selling policies, matched only by their  ability to avoid paying out claims.

 

Sh*t happens.... and you have to pay extra for it not to happen to you.

Edited February 9, 2018 by daltontrees

[Jon Heuch]

10 hours ago, daltontrees said:

And in a rather oxymoronic twist of the tale, building insurance policies normally include public liability insurance, which means that if the offending tree was in poor condition such that damage to a neighbour's property should have been foreseen and avoided, the insurer would probably pay out.

I am afraid there is the norm and then what you actually have for insurance. The norm is this:

 

i) you may have insurance that covers both your building and your contents. In which case you need read no further.

ii) you have separate buildings and contents cover (different policies either with the same insurer or with different insurers). In this case your buildings insurer would cover damage to your property but the third party/public liability risk clause is likely to be in your contents insurance. This is not the case with ALL policies but is the norm (or was the last time I looked!). So your tree falling and causing damage/injury to a third party is a matter for your contents insurer. If you don't have contents insurance you don't have insurance to cover this.

[devon TWiG]

Dalton trees .....it would appear from what you have said that "acts of god" are not covered by insurance then why have insurance ?     I would assume you personally  would act in a non negligent way with regards to your own trees and if it was a storm which caused them to fall and cause injury / damage to others then your insurers would say they will not accept any claim against you , or could the injured party then attempt to sue ,by trying to prove negligence ?? ... If the situation is such that any damage caused by falling trees / branches was always the responsibility  of the owners / insurers then surely many would find this unacceptable and who would then have trees on their property ??, especially in high risk target areas ( roads for example ) . It does surprise me whilst travelling around how many trees I see that to me are a bit dodgy and would not like to be responsible for , yet , it is rare to hear of any  incidents .

[Mark Bolam]

16 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I am convinced that Rylands v Fetcher has no relevance to this insurance business, if anyone wants to know why, I will explain.

 

The key here is what an insurance policy says. It is usual for storm damage to be covered by insurance, that is to say damage caused to the insured property. It is not the same as damage caused to someone else's property by your property. And htat's what is happenign when a branch falls off a tree, across a boundary and onto someone else's land.

 

It's not even that clear, an by now flatyre and others will have found that insurers will deem such occurrences as Acts of God whether they are arguably storm damage.

 

And in a rather oxymoronic twist of the tale, building insurance policies normally include public liability insurance, which means that if the offending tree was in poor condition such that damage to a neighbour's property should have been foreseen and avoided, the insurer would probably pay out.

 

Here's where we can leave it. The law excuses someone for damage caused by freak occurrences. A lot of insurance policies use this to exclude the insurer's liability. The only solution is to check the wording of your policy and if it doesn't cover you or your neighbour to your satisfaction, get a policy that does. Policies differ, seek one out that isn't a sham. Ask anyone on the street whether damage caused by a tree coming down in a gale is the sort of thing that should be covered by building insurance and they will say yes.  But it only does if you buy a policy that says that, and you will probably have to pay more for a good policy. Most policies don't. I changed mine last year because my old one was a con, I told the insures to shove it up their axa, and I got a new one . Insures are very capable at selling policies, matched only by their  ability to avoid paying out claims.

 

Sh*t happens.... and you have to pay extra for it not to happen to you.

‘Shove it up their Axa’ has my vote as being the best line on Arbtalk this year.