[ QUOTE ]
I may be behind on what I know, but I've been thinking the past few days. I'm a Utility Forester and this past week I visited a residence for a customer call in. We just finished ROW maintenance on this particular circuit. This guy has a Red Maple that he wanted us to take down. Long story short, it was out of the ROW and leaning towards the house. So, we can't do it. I explained the how and why of this particular situation and gave him a business card for a local tree service. He replies that he's not really interested in paying for it, and that he is going to check with his insurance company. He wants to know that if and when it falls on the house will they cover the costs. This gets my wheels to turning a bit. Now I'm wondering if the tree care industry should use the insurance companies to do some lobbying on our behalf. I'm thinking that they may/won't cover tree damages due to negligent practices, TOPPING comes to mind. I kinda think that this could work to change the topping mentality and bring some credibilty to the tree care industry. As I said, I may be behind on what I know, but I figure this is a good place to gain some insight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is a good place to gain some insight and you are asking good questions.
I assume that insurance companies because of some genetic defect will always try to avoid any possible claims. Some of your post's responses would seem to agree with that, but maybe the developing thread will give you the support to push for new considerations.
I am writing about an interesting contrast with insurance companies in England where I battled many years ago to keep them from cutting down trees. The short story is that I read insurance companies in the British Isles were cutting down trees rather than paying subsidence claims for foundations and buildings. The rationale was that the trees were drawing enough water from the ground to collapse the soils and cause structural damage. The problems therefore were the trees, and the solutions were simple; "Off with their trunks!"--very British.
But if you look behind the curtain, repair work on foundation and walls was very expensive and chopping down trees was very cheap. All it needed to lock the idea in place was a judge with a poker up his butt to decide that a somewhat distant tree had physically attacked and harmed a big apartment complex in the vicinity. It didn't matter that the original foundation work might've been substandard, this was a simple decision of cause-and-effect.
I was worried about the stupidity of that idea traveling across the pond to the States where we might have the start of another slaughter of innocent trees. If trees were really drying out the soil, I muttered, just rehydrate the affected areas. Seemed simple enough and straight to the point.
Well, I wasn't successful and it's a big time business over there now, with little old women peeking out from behind their curtains at lurking willows intent on cracking their bricks., Ah, the humanity.
We may not be far away from insurance companies monitoring the police bands for accidents in order to send teams out to finish off victims before they can make claims. Seems logical.
As my grandpa would tell me, never stand between somebody and a buck; you'll likely get a concussion.
Wulkowicz
My battle:
http://users.rcn.com/bobw.enteract/UKSubsidence2.2.html
