Damage to garden by neighbour's falling tree - Insurer changing position on coverage

[Edinburgh24]

The wording of the policy says that the costs of removing a tree that has caused damage to my buildings is covered. Although they may be arguing they don't cover hedges and fences they are included within the definition of my buildings.

The council cleared away the tree right up to my hedge and then the crown landed on my hedge which was over 2m
deep. Thus the vast majority of the tree that was cleared away was tree that caused damage to my buildings, hence why they are now saying that they will cover this.

I spoke to a structural engineer and a tree surgeon this morning.Their recommendation was simply to say that I am holding my neighbour liable and not give any further information as this will only be shot down by the insurance company. Then if they come back with arguments for not paying out, we can push back against these.

So I am off to write a letter.

Thanks for everyone's help.

[des8]

I couldn't see the link so am posting it again.

https://eui-pdf-assets.s3.eu-west-1....ance-Cover.pdf

Ojn page 4 it says that Contents do to include garden plants, but this is just for defining the word Contents. I had to read this a couple of times as it was confusing.
On page 24 it says that Garden Plants are covered, although not from storms. But they seem to agree this is impact damage.

To be clear I assume you meant to write "contents do not include" as
the policy actually states on this page "CONTENTS ...... but not including ....garden plants"
It is not unusual to insert a blanket exclusion, which may then be over written in a more specific section of a policy.
Confusing??????

I think that the person who suggested that this was "impact damage" was not insurance trained and had not been told about the doctrine of Proximate Cause.
It is a basic insurance principle that the cause of a loss is not necessarily the last cause in time.
In your scenario altho' the tree falling caused damage, the actual cause will be the storm (if there was a storm!)

On page 14 it says that damage to buildings (which include hedges and fences) by falling trees is not covered except for clean up costs which they now say they will cover. Initially they said this was not covered, which I accepted when I accepted that they were saying they would cover the hedges and fence.
Damage to hedges etc caused by Falling trees is not covered.
Cost of removing fallen trees or branches that have not caused damage to the building is not covered
Wonder why they are prepared to cover the removal costs, especially as they reckon this is storm damage.

My Policy Schedule says that the limit for coverage on Garden Plants is £1,000, but the Admiral website says that the limit is £1,000 on a standard policy, £3,000 on a Gold policy and £5,000 on a Platinum policy. I have a Gold policy. I would have some claim against this coverage as some of the damage was to single trees but most of the damage was to hedges.

If you are paying for Gold, ask Admiral to correct the error

I don't dispute that the policy booklet says this would mostly not be covered. The problem Admiral have created is that they told me it would be covered. It was then 25 days before they decided it was not covered. In this time I told my neighbour not to worry about it as Admiral had said they were covering it and instructed a company who I plan to have replace the fence. It puts me in a very poor light with my neighbour to go back on what was said and has made it more difficult for me to organise reports and a liability claim than it would have been at the start of this. I would have acted very differently if they had not done this.

Have any of your communications with admiral been in writing, or is it all verbal?
I always recommend keeping all discussions in writing, or when there is a conversation confirm it in writing within 24 hours.
Saves lots of argument later.

The insurers are refusing your claim on the basis of the damage being caused by storm.
Have you asked them for a copy of the weather report they are relying on for this rejection?

You will now have to obtain the relevant weather report for your area (which I noted you ae doing)

[Edinburgh24]

Sorry for the typo, it was indeed contents do not include garden plants, but they are covered in a separate section.

I think that the person who suggested that this was "impact damage" was not insurance trained and had not been told about the doctrine of Proximate Cause.
It is a basic insurance principle that the cause of a loss is not necessarily the last cause in time.
In your scenario altho' the tree falling caused damage, the actual cause will be the storm (if there was a storm!)

Admiral have consistently treated it as an impact claim, which is what they have listed it as on their website. They have not tried to deny liability due to it being a storm, instead they are denying liability due to impact from trees to hedges and fences not being covered.

Damage to hedges etc caused by Falling trees is not covered.
Cost of removing fallen trees or branches that have not caused damage to the building is not covered
Wonder why they are prepared to cover the removal costs, especially as they reckon this is storm damage.

The reason I believe that they are willing to cover this is that on page 4 the definition of Buildings includes boundary hedges, fences, gates and so on. Thus the tree that was removed was considered to have caused damage to my buildings and its removal is covered.

The fact that Admiral are willing to pay for clean up costs and that they have not raised the issue of storm damage suggests that they do not believe the weather reached the definition of a storm, which is the same position that I am in. Wind gusts did not reach the required 55mph.

You are correct re keeping things in writing, I should have done this from the beginning.

[Edinburgh24]

I have written a short letter.

It simply says that a tree at my neighbour’s address fell at an approximate time and date causing substantial damage at my address.

I am holding my neighbour liable and have attached a surveyor’s report listing the damages.

I will expect to hear from my neighbour or his insurers within 21 days.

Any issues with this? I don’t think it would help to add the act under which I believe they would be liable.

I believe I should leave the claim open for the items that Admiral may cover until I have heard if my neighbour’s insurer will cover them first.

[Pezza54]

In 21 days you could get a reply stating you should make a claim with your own insurance company.
I can't see any reason why you shouldn't say that you have approached Admiral Insurance and that they are refusing to cover the damage caused to your fencing and hedge by the falling tree. You could also state that the maximum cover of £???? for loss of plants is insufficient

[atticus]

Send that letter.

[des8]

Up until post 31 I understood that during bad weather the tree had fallen and in doing so damaged your fence/hedge and various trees in your garden.

It now seems from your post (The council cleared away the tree right up to my hedge and then the crown landed on my hedge which was over 2m deep. Thus the vast majority of the tree that was cleared away was tree that caused damage to my buildings),that the damage might have been caused when the council or their contractors were clearing the tree.

If that is so, then the damage would not be classed as storm damage but rather damage caused by the council clearance operations (hence Admiral accepting it as impact damage).

I'm beginning to think it might be the council you should be pursuing as they (or their contractors) should have taken steps to minimize damage to your property when removing the tree.

[Edinburgh24]

Sorry if I was unclear.

My neighbour is across the road from me.

The tree was large enough that it fell across the road, blocking the road with the crown landing on top of my hedge/fences/trees.

The council came out quickly to clear the trunk which was blocking the road, which is a bus route. I believe they were informed by a bus which could not get past. I can estimate the time of the tree falling by the fact that I saw a bus in front of our house, buses don't travel along that street, they travel along the side of our house, and surmised that there must have been a problem further along the bus route.

The council cleared the tree exactly to the edge of my property and no more. So the point I had meant to get across was that the clear up bill I have paid was only for the part of the tree that landed on my property causing damage. I did not pay for the removal of other parts of the tree that did not cause damage to my property. It is only relevant because Admiral will cover the clear up costs of parts of a fallen tree, but only those parts which cause damage to my property.

[des8]

So the cause ofv the damage was the council removing the fallen tree, but not taking care to ensure your property remained unscathed.
IMO then no wonder the insurance companies were rejecting your claim.

I wonder if PallasAthena has a viewpoint on this, as I know she was quite involved in the insurance industry and her opinion would be valuable.

[Edinburgh24]

I’m not sure what is not clear here.

The tree fell. It was very large so it landed across a wide area.

Part of it landed on the road and the council cleared that part.

Part of it landed on my garden causing damage and I had that part cleared away.

The council did not cause any damage to me.

[des8]

But you wrote: "The council cleared away the tree right up to my hedge and then the crown landed on my hedge"

To me that suggests there was no damage to your property until the council removed the tree

[Edinburgh24]

I did, apologies, I thought I had cleared it up.

The whole tree landed at once. The crown was on my hedge the trunk was on the road.

I have given the letter to my neighbour.

He says that his insurer indicated they would refuse my claim as the wind speed was over 55mph. I cannot find any evidence of that. I believe that the iPhone weather app at the time was forecasting wind speeds that high but the official Met Office data has lower speeds.

He also says that the tree was trimmed two years ago but that is not the same as it being checked for safety.

Anyway it was a very friendly meeting and he understands why I must put it writing before the insurers will deal with it.

[des8]

Well, now that's cleared up good luck with the claim.
If the MET office show recorded wind speeds at the time of the occurrence lower than 55mph the insurers will struggle to prove otherwise.