I got sued and the verdict is in!

After 11 years in business I got sued. The trial went down last week and took 2 days. It was nerve racking to say the least!

We were hired by a residential customer to prune several trees and take down one tree in mid 2008. The removal was a Gleditsia triacanthos armed (honey locust with thorns) and it was growing in an old fence row. We had a signed contract with the client. As the foreman was preparing to drop the 21" DBH log the neighbor went nuts. Cops came and we stopped! Turns out it was the neighbor's tree and they hate each other! They had 30+ years of hate built up between them.

2 weeks later we got sued for 75K (25K for the tree and triple damages as it was a reckless act). Nightmare!!! The case got dismissed in 2009 on a technicality (their star witness had a heroine warrant) the day before trial. They sued again in early 2010. My insurance company has paid for the entire defense. I have been to court and depositions over the last 2 years at least 10x's. I probably spent $1,000 in payroll for employees testifying not to mention the lost revenue from being stuck in court.

Here is the important part... We have a terms and conditions page on the back of our contact. In that we have an "ownership clause" it reads:

"The customer warrants that all trees, plant material and property upon which work will be performed are either owned by the customer or permission for the work has been obtained by the owner. Tree Care Inc. is to be held harmless from all claims for damages resulting from failure to obtain such permission."

The verdict came in today!!! The clause held up and the Judge released us of all liability!!!!! The people we were working for got a judgment against them for $1,340.00. They offered the plaintiff $3000.00 before the trial.

I am so happy this clause was in our contract and that it was signed! Overall this has been an awful experience. I am happy with the result, but it was no fun getting to this point.

My attorney asked me if we had changed any thing as a result of this and I said no. Short of doing a survey before starting the job, there wasn't much we could have done different!
 
Congrats! Score one for the good guys, even though the lawyers ALL get paid!

...What was the name of the case should someone need to make legal reference to it?

-Tom
 
"Tree Ownership: The authorizing party warrants that all trees listed are located on the customer’s property, and, if not, that the authorizing party has received full permission from the owner to allow Preservation Tree to perform the specified work. Should any tree be mistakenly identified as to ownership, the customer agrees to indemnify Preservation Tree, for any damages or costs incurred from the result thereof."

this is what we use in our contracts
 
[ QUOTE ]

...What was the name of the case should someone need to make legal reference to it?

-Tom

[/ QUOTE ]


Should be: Langer vs. Tree Care Inc.
or: Langer vs. Gregg

Our county court has a good public records feature that can be accessed online. The verdict is not there yet, but when it is I will post a link if I don't forget!
 
TreeCare,

Thank you SO much for posting this.

My contract does not say those things, but will soon because of you posting this.

Too bad you aren't compensated for all the lost time, I think you should be.

Glad it turned out well in the end.
 
[ QUOTE ]
TreeCare,

Thank you SO much for posting this.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yea thanks...great to hear it turned out for the better for you.
 
[ QUOTE ]


"The customer warrants that all trees, plant material and property upon which work will be performed are either owned by the customer or permission for the work has been obtained by the owner. Tree Care Inc. is to be held harmless from all claims for damages resulting from failure to obtain such permission."
\!

[/ QUOTE ]

This wording covers the interaction between you and your client. It does not protect you from suit from some other party (the neighbor)... they did not sign a contract with you. Here in Minnesota, it is the contractor's responsibility to clarify any discrepancies regarding property-line trees prior to work being performed.

I'm glad it turned out well for you. Shame on your client for misleading you.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


"The customer warrants that all trees, plant material and property upon which work will be performed are either owned by the customer or permission for the work has been obtained by the owner. Tree Care Inc. is to be held harmless from all claims for damages resulting from failure to obtain such permission."
\!

[/ QUOTE ]

This wording covers the interaction between you and your client. It does not protect you from suit from some other party (the neighbor)... they did not sign a contract with you. Here in Minnesota, it is the contractor's responsibility to clarify any discrepancies regarding property-line trees prior to work being performed.

I'm glad it turned out well for you. Shame on your client for misleading you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This went on for 2.5 years. There is whole lot more to the story than I put in my earlier post...

I filed suit against my client as part of this. The contract and this clause were the crux of the suit against my client. I am little unclear as I have yet to receive a copy of the decision, but this is my understanding:

1) We won our suit against the client that hired me. We were "held harmless" by the court as a result of this agreement. This happened the first day of the trial. This means we could be sued, but would not be liable for damages.

2) If the plaintiff proved that we (Tree Care Inc.) acted recklessly we could of still been found guilty of triple damages and made to pay. If recklessness wasn't found on our part then the client was liable for all damages.

3) They did try to prove that I was reckless by not having completed a survey. This did not hold water I guess... They also tried to prove that we continued to remove the tree after being told to stop.

I do believe my client thought they owned this tree. It was clearly (by 2 or 3 feet) on my client's side of an old farm fence. I never even thought it might be the neighbor's tree, but after survey, it clearly belonged to the neighbor.

There is so much more to this. I could write a book! Glad it is over!
 
[ QUOTE ]
...I do believe my client thought they owned this tree. It was clearly (by 2 or 3 feet) on my client's side of an old farm fence. I never even thought it might be the neighbor's tree, but after survey, it clearly belonged to the neighbor...

[/ QUOTE ]

Dang. That makes me want to re-evaluate things too. I can see why you proceeded to take the tree down. Who would a thunk it?
 
Here is the entire "terms and conditions" page. It is on the back of all our contacts. There is a blurb under the authorization part that say's "I agree to terms and conditions on the reverse side of this form" or something to that effect.

If anyone sees something I am missing... please input.

BTW... we don't baha in peoples yard or destroy driveways on a regular basis. We call before we show etc... just covering the bases!

I have had these for 11 years and only get one question from clients a couple times per year. That is: "can you please call before you come". They never question anything else...

Anyone is free to copy these... I am no Lawyer, so use them at your own risk!
 

Attachments

Terms of payment:
All accounts are payable upon receipt of the invoice

-best part of your terms and conditions. I find this to be important, mine says 10 days and I will be changing this to paid upon completion. Too much pressure from all angles to pay me bills, taxes, employment securities NOW. I don't see why people can not pay for tree service now. Maybe apartment buildings get 10 days...

A big congrats on your case... I have never been sued but I thought it was brewing a number of times. I talk fast and leave bad jobsites even quicker.
 

Attachments

Yes, it has been a while (maybe 5 years since last one). It has probably happened 5 x's.

We paid to fix 3 of them and the highest repair bill was around $800.00. Two of them involved large crane access and in both cases the possibility of damage was explained very clearly and additional waivers were signed. None of these cases involved more than a cracked edge or minor cracks. All were concrete drives.
 

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom