On Fri, 27 May 2011 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On May 27, 7:08*am, Frank wrote:
On 5/26/2011 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:





On May 26, 7:37 pm, *wrote:
On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote:

I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so-
hypothetical situation:

If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree
whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang
onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing
Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved
into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others)
trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property.
Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed?

I know that Dan has no legal obligation to trim the tree, but is there
an implied moral obligation (it's Dan's tree therefore he should trim
it), or is it implied that the trim is for Bob's sole benefit,
therefore Bob should do it? *(And splitting the cost does not seem to
be an option here).

I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not
mentioned:

Tree owner's insurance company may want limb removed and pay for removal
to avoid possible higher liability if it damages neighbor's property.
Tree's owner would have to act because if he refused insurance company
could hold him liable for higher damages if limb falls.

There may be local laws, where if there is an imminent danger of the
limb falling (property is unkempt), local authority may fine the owner
and make him trim the offending tree.

Read my reply further up the thread.

It's been my experience that insurance companies will not pay for
"preventative maintenance" even if it could prevent a *potential*
damage claim later on.

The key word there is *potential*. If the tree never falls, they'd
never have to pay. If the homeowner cancelled the policy, they
wouldn't have to pay. If the homeowner decides to cut the tree down
himself, they wouldn't have to pay.

If insurance companies started fixing stuff to prevent potential
claims, they'd be mud-jacking sidewalks, replacing porch steps, paying
for brake jobs, driving people to AA meetings, etc. etc. It's far
cheaper for them to pay actual claims than to prevent potential ones.

I would agree with you but based this comment on an incident that
actually took place. *I'm not sure of specifics but insurance company
paid a relative to have limb removed that was threatening his neighbor's
garage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, that just means that there is no consistency in how ins co's
handle this.

My ins co

Haven't you switched the story here. In Frank's story it was Frank's
relation R's tree that was threatening a neighbor's garage, R
threatening N and R's insurance paying, not N threatening R and R's
insurance paying.

wouldn't pay to have limbs removed even after a neighbor's
limb came down on my house *and* they got an "expert opinion" that
others should be removed.

All they did was notify the neighbor's ins co of the problem with the
tree, including a veiled threat that they would expect the other ins
co to pay for any damage should further damage at a later date.