 alkizmo
join:2007-06-25
Pierrefonds, QC
kudos:1 | reply to Jack_in_VA
Re: Tree damage. Insurance help. (sorry for the rambling) said by Jack_in_VA:What kind of company do you have homeowners with that the agent would give you that advice? He's doing nothing but trying to get out of paying for your damages and subrogation with the other company to recover their money.
The agent is a broker, unless Kirk3 is mistaken, the broker is completely independent from the insurance company. He has no incentive to make it so that the insurance company doesn't pay out.
His insurance company probably wouldn't pay a dime ANYWAY as this is something to be fully covered by the contractor's insurance. However, statistically speaking, from hearing about the event, his insurance company can choose to raise the premium.
Just like after a few fender-benders that weren't your fault, your insurance premium will still go up.
Anyway the contractor's insurance is probably not saying anything because they are trying to first find out whether this was negligence from the contractor or an honest accident. |
|
 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1
1 edit | Car insurance and homeowners insurance are not comparable. At least here in Virginia. My "X" was a broker and licensed for about 20 some different companies and I know a little about it.
Brokers/Underwriters/agents usually are not in the claim side of the business. That is left to adjusters with some help maybe from the agent but not all the time.
OP's company has an obligation to prevent further damage from the damaged roof and other hazards. That's how I know about subrogation. All insurance companies use it and the process is more or less a given in some of these type cases. The contractor could argue the OP was partially at fault for his vehicles because he could have moved them prior to the tree work starting.
Even with auto insurance subrogation is used. I was in Atlantic City once and my car was parked in a parking garage for the hotel. Someone broke into it by breaking the window on the passenger side and ripped out the radio destroying the dash. The motels insurance company was unresponsive so my company paid to have my car fixed and took it to subrogation where the motels insurance co was required to repay my company which they did. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Jack_in_VA:. The contractor could argue the OP was partially at fault for his vehicles because he could have moved them prior to the tree work starting.
Not successfully.
If this was a legit tree company, they would made the homeowner move the cars before the work started or made him sign something that they are not responsible for the cars if he does not move them.
The only thing the tree company should have had to protect from the tree were things that could not be moved.
I would not be suprised if this shoddy company has no insurance.
From the way the broker told the OP not to file a claim, I would also not be suprised that the broker let the coverage lapse and was pocketing the money.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | said by r81984:said by Jack_in_VA:. The contractor could argue the OP was partially at fault for his vehicles because he could have moved them prior to the tree work starting.
Not successfully. If this was a legit tree company, they would made the homeowner move the cars before the work started or made him sign something that they are not responsible for the cars if he does not move them. I disagree. It's not up to the tree company to make the homeowner do anything especially if the homeowner is partially directing the job which it appears to me the OP was doing. OP should have realized that limbs and the tree itself had a potential to fall on the vehicles which the tree did.
Clearly the tree company is responsible for the home damage but the vehicles might be an interesting story. Hope the OP keeps us informed. |
|
|
|
alkizmo
join:2007-06-25
Pierrefonds, QC
kudos:1 | I think you guys read too much in him "supervising".
He was just the client doing his little speech of what he wants and doesn't want from them, then watches as they work.
An electrician can't claim it's not his fault for using 12AWG wiring on a 40A circuit because the client "supervised" him to do it. |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | said by alkizmo:I think you guys read too much in him "supervising".
He was just the client doing his little speech of what he wants and doesn't want from them, then watches as they work.
An electrician can't claim it's not his fault for using 12AWG wiring on a 40A circuit because the client "supervised" him to do it.
They were instructed by us, to de-limb and then take it down in sections because of the size and the way it was already leaning. I was going to stay and supervise, but an emergency came up.
I've had trees taken down like that and I darn sure did not try to tell them how to do it. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:said by r81984:said by Jack_in_VA:. The contractor could argue the OP was partially at fault for his vehicles because he could have moved them prior to the tree work starting.
Not successfully. If this was a legit tree company, they would made the homeowner move the cars before the work started or made him sign something that they are not responsible for the cars if he does not move them. I disagree. It's not up to the tree company to make the homeowner do anything especially if the homeowner is partially directing the job which it appears to me the OP was doing. OP should have realized that limbs and the tree itself had a potential to fall on the vehicles which the tree did. Clearly the tree company is responsible for the home damage but the vehicles might be an interesting story. Hope the OP keeps us informed. I dont read anywhere where the homeowner was directing the job.
The comments/request that the "not a tree professional or tree cutting employee" homeowner made about cutting the tree in sections was ignored.
The homeowner was not there when they made the cuts.
It is 100% up to the tree company to explain the risks, dangers, and tell the homeowner what to do and to get sign off's if the homeowner wants to ignore any risks or to get signoffs on any plan the homeowner wants them to do against their expertise.
The vehicles are not an interesting story. The tree cutting company is 100% at fault for not clearing any potential fall zone of things that can be moved.
Hell with their plan to knock down the tree towards the house would have required them to get the occupants to leave the house before they knocked the full length tree over.
If the tree company actually has insurance the insurance company would drop them if they found out they were not eliminating/minimizing possible risks and that they cut full trees to fall towards houses.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
alkizmo
join:2007-06-25
Pierrefonds, QC
kudos:1 | reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:It sure appears from the OP's own statement that he instructed and had intentions of supervising the job. Just interpreting what he posted.
I've had trees taken down like that and I darn sure did not try to tell them how to do it.
My point was that while he may have given instructions and observed the operations while saying "Do this, do that", doesn't liberate the contractors from being responsible for what happens, because they're the ones who should know better. (Again, my example of the electrician). |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to r81984
said by r81984:I dont read anywhere where the homeowner was directing the job. quote:
They were instructed by us, to de-limb and then take it down in sections because of the size and the way it was already leaning. I was going to stay and supervise, but an emergency came up.
Sure appears to me the OP directly told them what to do and was fully prepared to "supervise" directly had he not been called away. The comments/request that the "not a tree professional or tree cutting employee" homeowner made about cutting the tree in sections was ignored.
The homeowner was not there when they made the cuts. Then you're saying the OP would have been supervising directly had he been there. It is 100% up to the tree company to explain the risks, dangers, and tell the homeowner what to do and to get sign off's if the homeowner wants to ignore any risks or to get signoffs on any plan the homeowner wants them to do against their expertise. We don't know that the did not do this. Remember we're only hearing one side of the story. The vehicles are not an interesting story. The tree cutting company is 100% at fault for not clearing any potential fall zone of things that can be moved. We don't know they didn't advise OP to move the vehicles do we? Again we're only hearing one side of the story. Hell with their plan to knock down the tree towards the house would have required them to get the occupants to leave the house before they knocked the full lenght tree over. Are you a tree cutting expert? If not how can you determine which way they were felling the tree? If the tree company actually has insurance the insurance company would drop them if they found out they were not eliminating/minimizing possible risks and that they cut full trees to fall towards houses. I'm not an insurance company so I can't comment on a statement like that. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| If the homeowner was directing the professional to do dangerous things or go against their expertise then they would have to make the homeowner write the plan down and sign away any liability from the tree company.
If the tree company does not have this document taking away the liability they are 100% liable for their actions.
Anyways the OP stated they did not follow his suggestions.
As for the direction of the tree, just look at the cut stump. They were actually aiming for the neighbors house.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:said by alkizmo:I think you guys read too much in him "supervising".
He was just the client doing his little speech of what he wants and doesn't want from them, then watches as they work.
An electrician can't claim it's not his fault for using 12AWG wiring on a 40A circuit because the client "supervised" him to do it.
They were instructed by us, to de-limb and then take it down in sections because of the size and the way it was already leaning. I was going to stay and supervise, but an emergency came up. It sure appears from the OP's own statement that he instructed and had intentions of supervising the job. Just interpreting what he posted. I've had trees taken down like that and I darn sure did not try to tell them how to do it. OP needs to chose his wording more carefully. |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
·Callcentric
| reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:said by alkizmo:I think you guys read too much in him "supervising".
He was just the client doing his little speech of what he wants and doesn't want from them, then watches as they work.
An electrician can't claim it's not his fault for using 12AWG wiring on a 40A circuit because the client "supervised" him to do it.
They were instructed by us, to de-limb and then take it down in sections because of the size and the way it was already leaning. I was going to stay and supervise, but an emergency came up. It sure appears from the OP's own statement that he instructed and had intentions of supervising the job. Just interpreting what he posted. I've had trees taken down like that and I darn sure did not try to tell them how to do it. OP needs to chose his wording more carefully.
Its like after a traffic accident the difference between saying you did not see the other car or it came at high speed from behind the huge truck etc. |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA: Sure appears to me the OP directly told them what to do and was fully prepared to "supervise" directly had he not been called away. Oh please: obviously you've never been a contractor.
Nobody who's done real contracting - whether an arborist or a computer consultant - hasn't had the odd customer who got all up in their business about why-not-try-this? and why-are-you-doing-that? "Supervising" is not used the agency sense, but in the "it's my home and this looks dangerous/interesting and I really wanna keep an eye on it".
No contractor takes this "supervision" seriously other than to use the opportunity to educate the customer on his business and make him feel comfortable with his work. Yah, occasionally the customer may point out something that's actually useful, but the contractor still owns the full responsibility for the job.
To suggest that the OP's involvement ameliorates the tree company's culpability in any way is ridiculous.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Security Consultant | Orange County, California USA | my web site |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | said by Steve:said by Jack_in_VA: Sure appears to me the OP directly told them what to do and was fully prepared to "supervise" directly had he not been called away. Oh please: obviously you've never been a contractor. Nobody who's done real contracting - whether an arborist or a computer consultant - hasn't had the odd customer who got all up in their business about why-not-try-this? and why-are-you-doing-that? "Supervising" is not used the agency sense, but in the "it's my home and this looks dangerous/interesting and I really wanna keep an eye on it". No contractor takes this "supervision" seriously other than to use the opportunity to educate the customer on his business and make him feel comfortable with his work. Yah, occasionally the customer may point out something that's actually useful, but the contractor still owns the full responsibility for the job. To suggest that the OP's involvement ameliorates the tree company's culpability in any way is ridiculous. Steve I've never been a "contractor" as such but I've overseen many contractors and any that refused to follow my/our directions were out of there unless they could explain what we wanted was unsafe/illegal/too costly/or not in our best interests. Otherwise they followed what we directed. Note I listed unsafe first. |
|
