Insurance job - Insurance only paying for work in the owners garden. Potential issues?

[William Clifford]

Hi,

 

I've quoted for a large tree which has come down in the winds. It is in the owners garden, the neighbours garden and a small amount in the neighbouring garden to the rear.

 

I put the quote in and have heard back from the owner and the insurance company that the owners insurance company will only pay for the removal of the part of the tree in the owners garden. I've been asked to divide the quote, and that the neighbours are to claim on their own insurance for the removal.

 

Is this common?

 

There is a new garden office under the tree in the neighbours garden, amongst other things. My concern is that taking just the trunk and a few of the branches out of the owners garden will put more weight on the office (it is likely a write-off anyway), but that it leaves the remainder of the tree in an even more precarious position. It may roll and cause more damage, or if I make it 'safer', it will likely involve me putting more limbs into the neighbours garden and on the office than are there already. I don't want come back from the neighbour or their insurance company saying we'd made it worse.

 

I'm inclined to say we do it all or none to avoid issues, which would rely on all neighbours and insurance companies agreeing for me to be the contractor, which may or may not happen?! And even then I would prefer a contract with just one insurance company / the owner.

 

Thoughts?

[htb]

Do it all or walk, for the reasons you have given,

[openspaceman]

I have always taken the view that if your tree falls onto your neighbour's garden and there was no signs it was likely to happen then you should  remove the trespassing parts of the tree back to your land. If the tree was obviously likely to fall then you have been negligent and should also be liable for any damage done.

 

Interested to hear about the actual legal position.

 

I would only contract with one party for the whole job too.

[petercb]

All or nothing. Don't end up as piggy in the middle.

[William Clifford]

I don't think I've come across this before. As far as I've been aware, it has always been tree owner paid for it all and claimed off insurance, or insurance paid me direct.

 

The quote included the caveat along the lines of "whilst care will be taken to avoid further damage, it will be safety first and avoiding further damage will be second to that". With that in mind and out of curiosity, what do you think the legal position would be of further damage to homeowners and neighbours property?

 

Dragging branches past white walls is my responsibility still, but further damage to property under or nearly under the tree?

[daltontrees]

Sounds an awkward situation, but perhaps legally correct if the relevant insurance policies say so.

 

Clearly the worst scenario is to have to remove the tree in the owner's proerty but not to have authority, access or a contract for payment to remove the bit in the neighbour's part first.

 

So the thing to do probably is offer the tree owner to remove it all subject to the neighbour's permission for access. This should include an apportionment for insurance purposes (but not comprising separate quotes). The owner should then offer to pay it all to you knowing he will only get part of it back from his insurers or get part of it back from the neighbour (this havign been agreed in advance) who in turn knows he will get part of it back from his insurers. Acting as a broker between the parties is too much to ask of a tree work contractor. Offer for all to one customer, give an apportionment that the parties can use.

 

I don't see the need for specific caveats about further damage to an office, just use reasonable care.

 

And don't call him a client, 'customer' is the approriate term that avoids expectations of professional advice.

 

[Steven P]

Sorry, being blunt, you can do as the insurers say, and do a shit job.

 

Or you can do a good job,

 

Sounds like you need all 3 insurers to talk together and all 3 of them to all agree that your quote is the best for the job, and then all 3 to coordinate giving you the go ahead and then coordinating with all 3 owners to do the work. Suspect this will add to the cost of course. Remove what you have been given approval for and you are leaving site with half a tree on a neighbours house? Wonder if that will happen quickly?

 

You could work backwards, top to bottom as it were, do the neighbours first if their insurers approve, then the clients garden another time if necessary (or wait till neighbours get their half done)

 

In my view (I have made very few insurance claims though), householders tree,. fell damaging neighbours property, client is liable for that damage and their insurance should pay up. Neighbour isn't liable for any of it and should be claiming on the tree owners insurance. 

[Mark Bolam]

12 hours ago, Steven P said:

 

 

In my view (I have made very few insurance claims though), householders tree,. fell damaging neighbours property, client is liable for that damage and their insurance should pay up. Neighbour isn't liable for any of it and should be claiming on the tree owners insurance. 

 

That’s the way it should be Steven.

It seems really unfortunate and unfair that it’s not the way it is.

 

On any insurance job I always make it clear to the customer and that they will be paying me, and then they can claim it back from their insurance company.

 

I’ve weighted invoices in their favour before when 3rd party properties are involved, but there are limits.

[daltontrees]

13 hours ago, Steven P said:

Sorry, being blunt, you can do as the insurers say, and do a shit job.

 

Or you can do a good job,

 

Sounds like you need all 3 insurers to talk together and all 3 of them to all agree that your quote is the best for the job, and then all 3 to coordinate giving you the go ahead and then coordinating with all 3 owners to do the work. Suspect this will add to the cost of course. Remove what you have been given approval for and you are leaving site with half a tree on a neighbours house? Wonder if that will happen quickly?

 

You could work backwards, top to bottom as it were, do the neighbours first if their insurers approve, then the clients garden another time if necessary (or wait till neighbours get their half done)

 

In my view (I have made very few insurance claims though), householders tree,. fell damaging neighbours property, client is liable for that damage and their insurance should pay up. Neighbour isn't liable for any of it and should be claiming on the tree owners insurance. 

Nothing wromg with being blunt.

 

But does 'in your view' mean that's your interpretation of the law or that's morally the right thing to do? It seems in this case the insurers have a different 'view'. My understanding of the law is that the tree owner is only liable if the failure and damage was foreseeable. My view on the morality is that insurers are really good at taking money and even better at [edit] NOT paying it out and presumably know the law and the details of the insurance policy, and arguing with them could be futile.

 

I see you have one foot on the 'client' landmine. A client is someone thats pays you for advice and is entitled to rely on it as being professionally sound, and can sue you if it's wrong.  A customer is someone that pays for work to be done. Call a customer a client and you are holding yourself out as an adviser, with all the liability that follows.

Edited January 17, 2023 by daltontrees

[openspaceman]

42 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

My understanding of the law is that the tree owner is only liable if the failure and damage was foreseeable.

Yes mine too

42 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

 

My view on the morality is that insurers are really good at taking money and even better at paying it out and presumably know the law and the details of the insurance policy, and arguing with them could be futile.

I'm not so sure about good paying it out, because they know the contract and the law they use that knowledge to limit the amount of any claim, especially in regard to "betterment".