Tree fell on neighbors house and caused damage

[MAJefferson]

My wife and I are out of state (we live in Virginia) owners of a lot in Palm Coast, Florida. We were just informed from an insurance companies subrogation office, that a tree on our property fell on a neighbors house and caused damage. We were not aware of any dead or diseased trees on the property. The insurance company is saying that we may be responsible for the damages. I have contacted a tree removal company in the area to get an estimate on removal of any dead or diseased trees currently on the property.

As the owners, if we were not aware of the problem, had never before received any type of notice on this from anyone, would we be liable for this damage?

Thank you,
~M

 

[mightymoose]

Doesn't matter much if you were aware. If your insurance policy covers this then you are set. If insurance does not cover it, and the tree is on your property, then you will likely be held responsible for the damage.

 

[disagreeable]

Ditto. It is your responsibility to maintain your property. Your failure to do so, does not change your liability if the tree was dead or diseased in such a manner as to be unsafe.

 

[Latigo]

Ditto. It is your responsibility to maintain your property. Your failure to do so, does not change your liability if the tree was dead or diseased in such a manner as to be unsafe.

You and the other misinformed person whom you "dittoed" have much to learn about "Acts of God" and the laws of negligence when it comes to a property owner's liability for damaged occasioned by falling trees and limbs.

Contrary to what your posts suggest, such an owner is not an insurer of his neighbor's property!

 

[disagreeable]

You and the other misinformed person whom you "dittoed" have much to learn about "Acts of God" and the laws of negligence when it comes to a property owner's liability for damaged occasioned by falling trees and limbs.

Contrary to what your posts suggest, such an owner is not an insurer of his neighbor's property!

Contrary to your dreams of no responsibility, if you fail to maintain your property and as a result cause damage to your neighbors, you are generally liable in most states. Only if it was an act of God, are you usually absolved of liability.

 

[disagreeable]

You and the other misinformed person whom you "dittoed" have much to learn about "Acts of God" and the laws of negligence when it comes to a property owner's liability for damaged occasioned by falling trees and limbs.

Contrary to what your posts suggest, such an owner is not an insurer of his neighbor's property!

Contrary to your dreams of no responsibility, if you fail to maintain your property and as a result cause damage to your neighbors, you are generally liable in most states. Only if it was an act of God, are you usually absolved of liability.

Here is an interesting link discussing the generality in application of law.

http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20031006_treefall.htm

As an owner in absentia, OP could be legally responsible to have his property overseen for safety reasons. It would be up to a judge to decide the balancing factors.

 

[Latigo]

Contrary to your dreams of no responsibility, if you fail to maintain your property and as a result cause damage to your neighbors, you are generally liable in most states. Only if it was an act of God, are you usually absolved of liability.

Here is an interesting link discussing the generality in application of law.

http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20031006_treefall.htm

As an owner in absentia, OP could be legally responsible to have his property overseen for safety reasons. It would be up to a judge to decide the balancing factors.

Is it necessary to call attention to the fact that you earlier agreed ("dittoed") this response:

"Doesn't matter if you were aware . . .If . . . the tree is on your property, then you will likely be held responsible for the damage".

Which is a far cry from proving (1) that the landowner was negligent in maintaining the tree – e. g., had knowledge that the tree was weakened by disease, etc., or could have discovered such a defective condition if acting prudently - and (2) that such negligence on the part of the landowner was the proximate cause of the damage complained of.

 

[Latigo]

Is it necessary to call attention to the fact that you earlier agreed ("dittoed") this response:

"Doesn't matter if you were aware . . .If . . . the tree is on your property, then you will likely be held responsible for the damage".

Which is a far cry from proving (1) that the landowner was negligent in maintaining the tree – e. g., had knowledge that the tree was weakened by disease, etc., or could have discovered such a defective condition if acting prudently - and (2) that such negligence on the part of the landowner was the proximate cause of the damage complained of.

Plus, I will make you a bet. Which is that you cannot name one property owner, including you, that has ever had their trees professionally inspected for latent structural defects, much less having paid for periodic such inspections.

It just doesn't happen in the real world.

Moreover, I defy anyone to cite a line of recognizable and generally accepted case law to the effect that the failure to inspect for latent structural defects alone is probative evidence of negligence on the part of the landowner.

 

[mightymoose]

Doesn't matter much if you were aware. If your insurance policy covers this then you are set. If insurance does not cover it, and the tree is on your property, then you will likely be held responsible for the damage.

Jeesh.... why are we nitpicking old posts?

To paraphrase my original response... what I was saying is that if the insurance company wont honor the claim then the homeowner is on the hook to deal with the complaint. Whether the homeowner ultimately pays is a different question, but the homeowners absence from the state and lack of knowledge as to the condition of the tree does not automatically absolve him of responsibility. The "I didn't know" defense rarely works anywhere.

 

[disagreeable]

Plus, I will make you a bet. Which is that you cannot name one property owner, including you, that has ever had their trees professionally inspected for latent structural defects, much less having paid for periodic such inspections.

It just doesn't happen in the real world.

Moreover, I defy anyone to cite a line of recognizable and generally accepted case law to the effect that the failure to inspect for latent structural defects alone is probative evidence of negligence on the part of the landowner.

Contrary to your contention, those of us in the real world that own property with 100 foot plus trees do in fact inspect them and tend those requiring tending and removing those that have died. Otherwise, we have 100 foot long missiles that fall randomly around hitting things.