Liability Insurance

[thebeechtree]

That was lucky then! I don't know your name other than your sign-in, but let me know if you're with me and you too will be cancelled forthwith!
But exactly, accidents can happen... but in your case, if a claim had come in against you, was there any negligence on your part? Very probably not, so again, the insurance would defend you, but with a view to regrettably declining the boat-owner's claim. That may seem harsh, but as I say, it's all about who is legally liable, if anyone; and usually, nobody is actually at fault, so nothing comes of the claim; but at least you don't have to deal with it on your own.

[SimonFisher]

Not sure I should mention it here (with my provider in this thread ) *cough*, but...
During the high winds earlier this year we lost the top of one of our big Ash trees, which is by the waterway that runs along one edge...

Yep, we had a big beech tree come down a few days after Christmas gone, brought down our deer fence and fell across the road between the two nearby villages, closing the road for a couple of days till we got someone to sort it out for us at our expense. There was no injury to anyone.

Had the local authority got to it first, cleared it and billed us, would public liability insurance had covered that cost?

[Zathras]

Had the local authority got to it first, cleared it and billed us, would public liability insurance had covered that cost?

That's a very good question and one we had too, hopefully Mr Beechtree can answer it.

In our case, we had visited after the winds to inspect for damage and found the topless tree. So, I got in a professional to review it with me and scheduled a time to do the deed. By the time we turned up to sort it though, the waterway authority had done half the work for us and I wondered if a bill would land on my mat.

If I had been billed then my next question would have been, is this covered?
I suspect not, but at the same time we weren't contacted in advance of those works and had already scheduled in a professional to deal with it. So guessed I'd have some kind of case to refuse, certainly if the bill was extortionate.

One liability factor is that we had identified the tree as a risk already, as it had a split growth into two trunks creating an obvious weak point - but the break was way above the bothersome area so unrelated to our identifacation of risk.

This stuff gets grey very quickly...

[thebeechtree]

Hi chaps, sorry for the late response; was out this evening. Yes, that is a bit of a grey area, in that whilst it does and should hinge on liability being determined against you, the wood owner, in practice it doesn't always go with the rules. Legally, the insurer would be within its rights - and the law - in asking for negligence to be proven. The fact that the tree had a structural weakness would, in my opinion, be enough for the insurer to just accept liability attaches and deal with the claim.But if the tree was otherwise perfectly healthy, then we do have a grey area in that, in my personal experience, if the claim isn't excessive, the insurer will just settle anyway, when legally, they might not have to.
In my own case of a tree coming down in the October storms, my household insurer didn't quibble and just asked for the bill to clear the tree; it was me who chose to split the costs with my neighbour and not bother with a claim; the point was, the insurer had obviously decided it was just too much bother and costs to investigate fully. So, it was a (wrong) decision but in our favour!
I have no doubt though that if personal injury was involved, or very costly damage to property, the answer would be different, in that the insurer would follow the legal rules and ask them to prove you'd been negligent. However, in any case, your legal defence costs would be covered, and that's what you should be most concerned with.

[SimonFisher]

So if there's negligence proven on the part of the owner of a fallen tree, a neighbour on whose land the tree has fallen, can rightly expect the tree owner to cover the cost of removal - yes? If there is no negligence, the tree owner can't be made to pay?

[oldclaypaws]

Had the local authority got to it first, cleared it and billed us, would public liability insurance had covered that cost?

Theres probably something written into some highways act somewhere requiring an owner to clear it within a specified period or incur the costs of the council doing so. In reality, where its a minor road and theres an alternative route, most people would expect a private landowner to sort it in a reasonably short period, subject to either having the time and kit to do it themselves or being able to find a free contractor. Where a local highways authority deems it necessary for local access to do it urgently such as on a busy road, they probably just send their own crew and absorb the cost. With the squeeze on public finances, this 'free public service' attitude might shift to making more attempt to recover the costs. The Council won't be too eager to get involved in litigation though, so probably prefer to spend £500 from the public purse clearing a tree rather than arguing over the liability for costs at a potential legal bill of several thousand. Common sense prevails, hopefully?

[SimonFisher]

I think in our case there were probably other trees that the crews were out dealing with and hadn't got around to ours, although the local authority had I believe been out and put 'road closed' signs in place.

As soon as we were made aware of it, we instructed a local contractor make it safe, clear the road, and cut it into rounds - cost us £450. Now we have around five tonnes of beech to process and season

[thebeechtree]

Catching up...! I'm snowed under with Glasto insurance at the mo so bear with me.
Simon and ClayPaws, you're both right; legally, as negligence has to be proved to get a judgement enforcing payment, whether on you privately or through your insurers, you can't be forced to pay up unless there's been negligence on your part; but yes, common sense usually prevails. Councils do charge sometimes (it used to be £500 in Sussex, I believe; not sure what it might be now) but would they bother with litigation if you refused? I doubt it, given the legal process would then begin with all the costs to insurers on both sides - and really, no-one wants that. So I suspect they'd just clear it up anyway, especially given the adverse public opnion caused by a still-blocked road after several days/weeks etc.
I don't know if this is on the web somewhere, but on the local Sussex/Kent news in the past two or more months was a story of a large conifer which came down; it's propped against a block of flats and the argument's raging between the flat-owner and the land-owner whose tree it is, over who clears it away, given no negligence is apparent. I reckon it has to be flat-owner's insurer, given there's no legal liability on the land-owner, it was just a bad storm. Having said that, why don't both insurers just get on with it and split the costs??! That would be too sensible of course!