Pruning Indemnity?

[Guest]

I had a Beech hedge to reduce the other day and halfway through the homeowner part joked about how my insurance would cover it if the hedge were not to survive. I sell myself as a tree service, not as tree care although like most I find it's a balance between what the customer wants and what's best for the tree. Therefore I'm usually working to their request, albeit with some suggestion - eg. such as thinning rather than reducing. And I try to work to BS standards although there are always those who want a tree topped regardless. So my point is could someone in our position be held legally responsible for a tree or hedge that didn't do well after work is carried out, as being a service you're effectively acting upon instruction. And conifer or hedge reduction doesn't fall within any BS standard I'm aware of ( and where would flailing sit?).

If push came to shove is this what indemnity cover is partly for, as I've always associated that with legal recourse from bad advice, such as surveys, or services from Loler inspectors etc. It seems hard to cover against a natural reaction, or lack of, to pruning?

[Wedgebanger]

Beech are very hardy hedges.. it would take a lot to knock it out for good..

edit:: I pollarded a beech hedge that was 15ft tall down to 5ft... it took a few yrs to get going. But it going good again now..

oh. I know what it says about taking back an overgrown beech hedge.

 

so what I’m saying is just tell um it will take some time..?

Edited September 23, 2019 by Wedgebanger

[tree-fancier123]

Now (autumn) must need extra cover - double indemnity perhaps £$, as all those open pruning wounds are exposed to airborne pathogenic fungal spores.

[Steve Bullman]

2 hours ago, Calamity Wayne said:

I had a Beech hedge to reduce the other day and halfway through the homeowner part joked about how my insurance would cover it if the hedge were not to survive. I sell myself as a tree service, not as tree care although like most I find it's a balance between what the customer wants and what's best for the tree. Therefore I'm usually working to their request, albeit with some suggestion - eg. such as thinning rather than reducing. And I try to work to BS standards although there are always those who want a tree topped regardless. So my point is could someone in our position be held legally responsible for a tree or hedge that didn't do well after work is carried out, as being a service you're effectively acting upon instruction. And conifer or hedge reduction doesn't fall within any BS standard I'm aware of ( and where would flailing sit?).

If push came to shove is this what indemnity cover is partly for, as I've always associated that with legal recourse from bad advice, such as surveys, or services from Loler inspectors etc. It seems hard to cover against a natural reaction, or lack of, to pruning?

If someone can afford a good enough lawyer you can be sure they could find a way of blaming a tree or hedges demise on you! Doubtful you’d get insurance to cover something like that either.

 

Would he interested to know if there’s ever been such a case in law 

[Jon Heuch]

On 23/09/2019 at 17:11, Calamity Wayne said:

If push came to shove is this what indemnity cover is partly for, as I've always associated that with legal recourse from bad advice, such as surveys, or services from Loler inspectors etc. It seems hard to cover against a natural reaction, or lack of, to pruning?