storm damage, trees, and boundary walls.

Hi

We recently had a collasped tree during the storms.

A tree from my garden fell onto a party wall, and into someone elses garden. (It's presumed to be a party wall)


The insurance company agree that the wall needs to be repaired, and they are saying that 'because it's a boundary wall only half is covered.'. If he owned the wall, or I owned the wall then it'd be fully covered.. but since it's a 50-50 ownership only half is covered.

Can this be correct?

When I asked them to demonstrate that what they said was true they agreed to pay the full amount of the wall...


This might help other people, with insurers who refuse to pay up, and who refuse to clarify why they're saying what they're saying.



Part of the tree is still standing.. this is considered unsafe by me, and by my affected neighbor. (One of three large boughs is still standing, but the trunk is split, and is filling with water)

The insurance company wants me to pay for a report to determine if the still standing part of the tree is unsafe. Is this reasonable? (The money for the report must be paid by us, and cannot be claimed back, even if the report states that the tree is unsafe and must be removed.)

I can't see a distinction between the still standing wall, and the still standing tree.I wasn't asked to get engineers reports relating to the wall, so why the tree?

Are the insurance company trying it on?

Cheers

I think so, yes, but I am not an insurance expert.
In the current climate, everyone seems to be trying things on.
Like the poor girl in the clothes shop, many are trying but few are buying.

The insurance company usually sends out a loss assessor.
My experience of this was that my fees were paid by the insurance company.
My job was to assist in drawing up a claim for work needing to be put right in the house.

HTH

ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

party/party wall - would not both insurers pay 50%, rather than one insurer 100%? it seems strange that one insurer would pay 100% of a party/party wall, for damage as you describe.

If the tree is unsafe as is, then it up to the owner to make it safe. If your insurers deem it to be unsafe, they can ask you to remove it or make it safe, or alternatively, they can simply exclude any damage it may cause from your policy.

The report sough must be paid for by you and to be perfectly frank, if the tree must come out, that cost must be borne by you as well.