height restrictions on insurance????

[Charlieh]

thats what im pushing for 30mtrs

[b101uk]

i tried to explain that tree diameter was normally the bigger issue than height and thats how the training and accrediation is worked out on diameter

 

yes but we all know so that’s because the training provider makes more money that way, but in the grand scheme of things height affects risk more, more exposed to wind, higher for bits of wood to fall so have more energy, higher for you to fall, higher for you saw to fall, etc, etc ergo more risk, going by hight automatically encapsulates tall trees with thin trunks and tall trees with big fat trunks.

[Sam Thompson]

yes but we all know so that’s because the training provider makes more money that way, but in the grand scheme of things height affects risk more, more exposed to wind, higher for bits of wood to fall so have more energy, higher for you to fall, higher for you saw to fall, etc, etc ergo more risk, going by hight automatically encapsulates tall trees with thin trunks and tall trees with big fat trunks.

 

If you read it he doesn't climb

[b101uk]

If you read it he doesn't climb

 

if he climbs or NOT height is still the definitive risk even if you omit "higher for you to fall, higher for you saw to fall" wood can still fall out of a trees from high up even if your just felling if from the ground

[ecolojim]

once again, the discussion dragged into farce. falling wood, dead or otherwise is as likely to drop on you from adjacent trees as the one you are felling. That's a known unknown, and nothing you can do about it.

 

From a felling point of view, the diameter at the base IMO IS more important than its height, because the chances of using more technical cuts which require a deal more skill and accuracy is higher so i agree with Charlie

 

most of my insurances are with NFU as are all my old man's for the farm. They dont seem competative in the tree game, though my policy quote including knapsack spraying was surprisingly good when spraying can attract a hefty premium and rightly so. Think they tried to impose a 20ft climbing limit on mine at one point!

[Canal Navvy]

For the first time in 20 odd years I shall be talking to insurers other than the N.F.U. for our cover.

 

The price rise i can understand but the savage reduction in cover is hard to take. The suggestion that my lack of claims record could result in one big claim i find offensive.

They where a really could bunch when they were locally run I.M.H.O.

 

If you have not done so then READ YOUR POLICY

Edited May 18, 2011 by Canal Navvy
forgot

[Chris Underwood]

I am insured by Trust and they have been really good. I can go up to any height and 3m below ground to cover for grinding. £5m Public Liability.

[Roni Macdonald]

I waited months for a quote from nfu, who I have my vehicles with, they then said that since I had not had an accident in 20 odd years I was a heigh risk and would not insure me. I went to Trust.

[tommer9]

The NFU policy isnt really worth the paper its written on for tree work. Its a standard Pl policy amended a bit to cover tree stuff.

[Highland Forestry]

Thats because the NFU policies are.... crap, to be completely honest.

You'll also have a clause that states you can not do roadside felling works within a set distance of a public road.

 

Give Cameron a call at trust insurance. Their number is 01604 492644, option 3

Tell Cameron that Matt O'Brien recommended them, he might well do you a good deal.

 

For what it's worth - I have all of our company insurance with them, PL, EL, PI, Plant and Hired Plant as well as Commercial vehicles.. I haven't found a better company yet, and they are very easy to deal with.

 

Good Luck!