Please Pound Sand
November 8, 2010 7:09 PM Subscribe
Insurance Company demands (out of the blue) that I remove an 60 year old tree on my property. I'm inclined to refuse. I'm looking for advice.
I started a new home owners insurance policy with American Strategic Insurance (ASI) last year (March). All has been fine. Today, I received a letter in the mail stating that they had completed an inspection (I wasn't aware that such an inspection was being completed) and that one of the large, mature trees on my property was 'too close to the dwelling'. As such, they are requesting 'photos of the tree after removal'?!
This particular tree is an Elm tree that is at least 60 years old. The tree is close to the dwelling but it hasn't ever been a problem in the past. I had this particular tree (and four other mature, very large trees on the property) professionally trimmed in July (to the tune of $2500!).
I called my insurance company and they had few answers (they had no idea why the inspection was done when it was done). They said that they would 'note' that I would 'not be removing any trees on the property'. The letter clearly states that failure to comply with the inspection requests 'could result in non-renewal'.
Anyone with experience in this situation? Any idea what prompted the inspection? Is it reasonable for the insurance company to make this request after having an active policy on the property for nearly a year?
I started a new home owners insurance policy with American Strategic Insurance (ASI) last year (March). All has been fine. Today, I received a letter in the mail stating that they had completed an inspection (I wasn't aware that such an inspection was being completed) and that one of the large, mature trees on my property was 'too close to the dwelling'. As such, they are requesting 'photos of the tree after removal'?!
This particular tree is an Elm tree that is at least 60 years old. The tree is close to the dwelling but it hasn't ever been a problem in the past. I had this particular tree (and four other mature, very large trees on the property) professionally trimmed in July (to the tune of $2500!).
I called my insurance company and they had few answers (they had no idea why the inspection was done when it was done). They said that they would 'note' that I would 'not be removing any trees on the property'. The letter clearly states that failure to comply with the inspection requests 'could result in non-renewal'.
Anyone with experience in this situation? Any idea what prompted the inspection? Is it reasonable for the insurance company to make this request after having an active policy on the property for nearly a year?
2nding the advice that you look for another agency.
Check that there isn't any local law prohibiting healthy mature tree removal (you can't in Toronto).
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:38 PM on November 8, 2010
Check that there isn't any local law prohibiting healthy mature tree removal (you can't in Toronto).
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:38 PM on November 8, 2010
Insurance companies have underwriting departments that assess various factors presenting risks. It may take many months for it to get to the point of sending someone out to see the property. They issued a policy in the meantime because waiting until they sent someone would mean that no policies get issued at all. (No one is willing to wait for months for coverage to kick in.)
The factors that they use are hard to ferret out. Perhaps the company had a spate of falling elm episodes in your town in the last couple of years. It is a very opaque process.
Did you call the agent or the company? Do you know the difference? A call to the underwriting department may help. But they still may not be very forthcoming. Some tend to be quite dictatorial.
posted by megatherium at 7:48 PM on November 8, 2010
The factors that they use are hard to ferret out. Perhaps the company had a spate of falling elm episodes in your town in the last couple of years. It is a very opaque process.
Did you call the agent or the company? Do you know the difference? A call to the underwriting department may help. But they still may not be very forthcoming. Some tend to be quite dictatorial.
posted by megatherium at 7:48 PM on November 8, 2010
They might be concerned about the tree falling (although elms are pretty sturdy, even at 60 years) or they might be concerned about the roots messing with your foundation and/or plumbing. I tend to side with the folks who say keep the tree. Try to see if you can get a different agency to back it. If not, you might ask what the concern is. Perhaps a good trimming would solve the dispute.
posted by Gilbert at 7:59 PM on November 8, 2010
posted by Gilbert at 7:59 PM on November 8, 2010
Another thing might be to find a tree care agency near you and ask them to assess the tree. They should be able to tell you if it's healthy or not or likely to damage the house.
posted by amethysts at 8:03 PM on November 8, 2010
posted by amethysts at 8:03 PM on November 8, 2010
Oh and don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping the tree. Also more exact measurements than just a photo would help.
posted by sammyo at 8:26 PM on November 8, 2010
posted by sammyo at 8:26 PM on November 8, 2010
2nding that your town may have a law against cutting down mature trees. In my town, this includes any tree on private property of a certain age, as long as it can be seen from the street.
(Specifically, I helped saved two different historic homes in the same neighborhood partly based on that little gem of local tree preservation law. Powerful stuff. Depending on your jurisdiction and the condition of your tree, you may not be allowed to cut it down. Since you seem inclined to keep it, I hope this sort of law is on the books in your area. Good luck!)
posted by jbenben at 9:14 PM on November 8, 2010
(Specifically, I helped saved two different historic homes in the same neighborhood partly based on that little gem of local tree preservation law. Powerful stuff. Depending on your jurisdiction and the condition of your tree, you may not be allowed to cut it down. Since you seem inclined to keep it, I hope this sort of law is on the books in your area. Good luck!)
posted by jbenben at 9:14 PM on November 8, 2010
If this insurance company is going to start out this much of a problem then just imagine how much fun they will be when you submit a claim. DTMFAs. State Farm is a good agency. They are not the absolute cheapest but they tend to be quite reasonable about underwriting and claim coverage.
posted by caddis at 4:15 AM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by caddis at 4:15 AM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
Bring in an arborist first. did you ask if the insurance company did this? maybe they did and thats why they want it removed?
posted by majortom1981 at 4:39 AM on November 9, 2010
posted by majortom1981 at 4:39 AM on November 9, 2010
Switch to another company.
You can do all the research you want. Bring in experts to determine the health of the tree, get more exact measurements, etc. etc., but it really won't make a difference. This company obviously has an underwriting rule about large trees within x-distance of a dwelling. This would include any branches that overhang the home. Your rates will increase if you don't take the tree down.
As to how/when did they do an inspection? It's not out of the realm of possibility that they are relying on GoogleMaps/GoogleEarth imaging. Or some other satellite image provider. Honest.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:56 AM on November 9, 2010
You can do all the research you want. Bring in experts to determine the health of the tree, get more exact measurements, etc. etc., but it really won't make a difference. This company obviously has an underwriting rule about large trees within x-distance of a dwelling. This would include any branches that overhang the home. Your rates will increase if you don't take the tree down.
As to how/when did they do an inspection? It's not out of the realm of possibility that they are relying on GoogleMaps/GoogleEarth imaging. Or some other satellite image provider. Honest.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:56 AM on November 9, 2010
Is it reasonable for the insurance company to make this request after having an active policy on the property for nearly a year?
Yes.
They are not forcing you to cut down the tree, your alternative is just not to do business with them.
posted by cnanderson at 6:51 AM on November 9, 2010
Yes.
They are not forcing you to cut down the tree, your alternative is just not to do business with them.
posted by cnanderson at 6:51 AM on November 9, 2010
Without seeing the tree, it’s hard to say if the company is being extreme or if there really could be problems in the future. You might check with a home inspector or structural engineer. They could give you a good unbiased second opinion about the unreasonableness of the request. I know from experience that roots can really do a number on foundations. I hate removing trees, but after a few roof and foundation repairs, these guys may be saving you some money in the long run.
As for inspections, I think most companies do them upon initiating the policy and a few conduct them every few years. Usually they knock on the door and let you know they are there.
posted by iscavenger at 8:00 AM on November 9, 2010
As for inspections, I think most companies do them upon initiating the policy and a few conduct them every few years. Usually they knock on the door and let you know they are there.
posted by iscavenger at 8:00 AM on November 9, 2010
I'm going to agree with some others and say switch companies. We bought a house last year and got insurance through ASI. They also came and did a surprise inspection on our home; they saw my dogs through the window and dropped me due to having "uninsurable animals". I've heard of many others having problems with ASI demanding things or dropping policies for odd reasons. It seems they may just be a good company to stay away from.
I ended up getting a MUCH better policy through Farmer's for about $100 more a year, and no hoops to jump through.
posted by tryniti at 9:07 AM on November 9, 2010
I ended up getting a MUCH better policy through Farmer's for about $100 more a year, and no hoops to jump through.
posted by tryniti at 9:07 AM on November 9, 2010
I don't know about dealing with the company, but I might point out that the heath of the tree/possibility of it falling on the house may not be the issue. They might be worried that the roots will damage the foundation.
posted by cmoj at 10:27 AM on November 9, 2010
posted by cmoj at 10:27 AM on November 9, 2010
It's an Elm; there's a DED epidemic ...Dutch Elm Disease. What part of the world is the tree in? For example, in D.C. : The disease has killed over 25,000 elms since 1950 with only 8,200 elms presently remaining on city streets.
posted by at at 11:06 AM on November 9, 2010
posted by at at 11:06 AM on November 9, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by sammyo at 7:15 PM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]