"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:28:22 +1000, "Jake56" wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0mxxi7rjwdg98l@glass...
On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 20:18:09 +0100, Jake56 wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
newsp.0mxqjszawdg98l@glass...
On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:46:16 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 20:36:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

snip

And if something of yours had got broken, you might be advised to
claim off *your* insurance? Not everyone get's the 'sorry, my
fault,
let me sort that out for you' ethic.

When a car crashes into mine, their insurance pays, not mine!

Who was talking about cars?

It's the same with everything, the person at faults pays up.

Not necessarily with acts of nature with big storms unless
you have been negligent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of...80%93_Scotland

Since god or nature cannot possibly pay up, then yeah, obviously. But
if
it's due to a person doing something wrong, then of course they should
pay.

But not if a strong wind brought down the tree, the person whose tree it
is
is not at fault normally.

If my tree fell down and went through my neighbour's window, she
shouldn't
expect her insurance to pay, and raise her premium. The money should
come
from me or my insurance.

Legally that is just plain wrong.

No it isn't. I'm at fault for having a tree that is too tall for being
that close to her house.

Legally that is just plain wrong.

IF the neighbour's tree had dead branches etc and was made aware of
the problem, and the tree comes down on your house, their insurance
CAN be required to cover the damage.

He said too tall, not dead branches. And you don't have to make
them aware of dead branches to be able to claim for damaged
caused by the dead branch coming off in a big storm either.