tree on roof
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
Login  | |
|
tree on roof - 7/28/2006 8:07:21 AM
|
|
|
quarky
Posts: 11
Joined: 11/19/2004
Status: offline
|
For those of you that have adjusted in FL, GA, etc where the huge 100 year old live oak trees are found, I have a question regarding such. I inspected a property were the huge lower limb that was growing out 4 feet from the base of the trunk, had started to crack and break about 7-8 feet from its attachment. At this breaking point, the limb was deteriorated and had an open old "wound" exposing the inside of the limb. It has not completed broken off, maybe partly due to the fact the far reaching limbs are resting on the house. Yes, it did minor damage to sheating and shingles. The back half of this huge tree was already dead and decaying. The insured stated that there was no wind, lightening, etc. at the time of the occurrance, they were sitting on the front porch when it happened. And then the center of the roof was tarped from what they insured stated was shingle damage due to Alberto about 4 weeks ago, with minor enusing water damage to the interior.
Now I know that I must have a cause of loss and usually trees falling on houses are from wind, lightning, etc. But a weather report confirms her statement of no significant wind or storm on that day. But about 1 mo. prior there were approximate winds from Alberto according to the weather data.
If this was your file, how would you handle the tree limb breakage? Age? Deterioration? Possible wind contributing to the loss from earlier storms?
TIA for your input,
IA in FL
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/28/2006 9:14:27 AM
|
|
|
TomS
Posts: 116
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Texarkana, TX
Status: offline
|
IMHO, no wind, no lightning, etc and the facts as you described about "tree" NO Coverage. As to Alberto different story.
seems 2 causes of loss, and date of loss,etc. just INHO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/28/2006 10:31:45 AM
|
|
|
aporco
Posts: 124
Joined: 4/21/2004
Status: offline
|
TomS,
Why no coverage? Where's the exclusion? Even in named perils policies, Falling Objects are covered.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/28/2006 10:35:45 AM
|
|
|
mh0825
Posts: 582
Joined: 8/31/2005
Home base: Gainesville, FL
Status: offline
|
Was it so obvious that the tree was decaying that the homeowner should have taken measures to prevent it from falling on the home?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/28/2006 11:53:25 AM
|
|
|
ClaySheffield
Posts: 66
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Daphne, Alabama
Status: offline
|
That would be my question Mat....did they know that it was likely to happen and did nothing to prevent it? If so ...I doubt they would be offered coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/28/2006 11:58:28 AM
|
|
|
CATdawg
Posts: 149
Joined: 2/26/2006
Home base: Keller TX
Status: offline
|
Assume a standard HO 3 policy:
If the limb had broken off completely without previously having caused mechanical damage, damage would be covered under the "falling objects" peril. The HO 3 also covers all perils not specifically excluded (exclusions include flood, earthquake, war, nuclear accident, landslide, mudslide, sinkhole, and other perils specified in the policy), so damage from a hanging limb shoul also be covered. Refer to Section I- Perils Insured Against, and Section I- Exclusions.
If all the damage occurred in the current loss period (see Definitions- B. 8. "Occurrence"), and the homeowner was previously aware that the tree was in a sorry state and likely to deteriorate further, the loss should still be covered, as "negligence" and "procrastination" are not specifically excluded.
However, mechanical damage prior to the current loss period could be interpreted as a failure to mitigate further damage (Section I- Conditions, B. Duties After Loss, 4. "Protect the property from further damage.."
If the tree had been seriously damaged by lightning in a previous storm, loss of the tree would have been covered up to $500 (Section I-Property Coverages, E. Additional Coverages, 3. Trees, Shrubs, and Other Plants).
Also, see Section I-Property Coverages, E 1. a. (1) and E. 1. b. (1) for debris removal coverages.
Since you stated that there is only minor damage to shingles and sheathing, there might not be a net loss after applying the deductible.
< Message edited by CATdawg -- 7/28/2006 12:26:17 PM >
_____________________________
Lee Norwood
"Many a time have skillful workmen tried to contrive a wheel that shall turn of itself..." -Archimedes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/30/2006 8:32:25 AM
|
|
|
quarky
Posts: 11
Joined: 11/19/2004
Status: offline
|
Thanks for everyone's help. Yes, the insured knew about the wound and did nothing about it, the limb, or the dead part of the tree on the back side. The wound was very old and the deterioration inside the limb was obvious. The limb never completely broke off, it was far reaching and over the roof anyway, which caught it and stopped the process. With your wisdom, I was able to complete the assignment. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.....
Thanks,
IA in FL
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/30/2006 11:21:16 AM
|
|
|
givemeroofs
Posts: 301
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: aporco
Even in named perils policies, Falling Objects are covered.
I think I missed that one. If you come here and write "falling object" as the peril under the HOA named peril policy you had better have damage from a falling car or falling airplane.
Just an FYI, the named perils are
1. Fire and Lightning. 2. Sudden and Accidental Damage from Smoke. This peril does not cover loss caused by smog or by smoke from industrial or agricultural operations. 3. Windstorm, Hurricane and Hail. This peril does not cover: a. loss to the following: (1) cloth awnings, greenhouse and their contents, buildings or structures located wholly or partially over water and their contents. HO-A (2) radio and television towers, outside satellite dishes, masts and antennas, including lead-in wiring, wind chargers and wind mills. b. loss caused by rain, snow, sand or dust, whether or not driven by wind, unless the direct force of wind or hail makes an opening in the roof or wall and the rain, snow, sand or dust enters through this opening and causes the damage. 4. Explosion. 5. Aircraft and Vehicles. This peril does not cover loss caused by any vehicle owned or operated by an occupant of the residence premises. 6. Vandalism and Malicious Mischief. 7. Riot and Civil Commotion. 8. Theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known place when it is likely that the property has been stolen. The peril does not cover: a. personal property while away from the residence premises at any other residence owned by, rented to or occupied by an insured, except while an insured is temporarily living there. b. personal property while away from the residence premises and unattended in or on any motor vehicle or trailer, other than a public conveyance, unless all its doors, windows and other openings are closed and locked and there are visible marks of forcible entry. Property is not unattended when the insured has entrusted the keys of the vehicle to a custodian. c. building materials and supplies not on the residence premises.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: tree on roof - 7/30/2006 12:58:10 PM
|
|
|
msindependent7xl
Posts: 1
Joined: 7/30/2006
Status: offline
|
One last thing...remember you still owe to remove the limb from the Roof. Not the entire tree, just the limb, this is an expense so not subject to the deductible. We owe under normal open peril policy 100% the cost to remove the tree or the limb from the affected area. You don't owe for the clean-up of the tree or the limb, if you have an HO3, as debris removal of trees is only covered for wind, hail, wieght of ice, snow or sleet, or any other named perils under coverage C personal property. (falling objects doesn't count as it says that "Damage to the falling object itslef is not included." Also you may want to advise the in-house adjuster to send an underwriting referral so that the insurance company can notifiy the insured that the entire tree must be removed. Putting them under notice would prevent the insurance company from paying a claim if this same tree would fall again.
|
|
|
|
!! You are viewing a post in the forum archive.
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
User Agreement | Privacy Statement| Contact |Copyright 1995 - 2006 CatAdjuster.org. All rights reserved.
0.078
|
Printable Version
