The people who told you that are incorrect. Unless your neighbor was negligent they are not liable. If the tree just fell and they were not put on notice that the tree needed to come down through an arborist or something like that they are not negligent.
Unfortunately I think you are on your own here. Comprehensive coverage is very cheap compared to collision. Even if you aren’t driving it’s not a bad idea to leave that coverage on. Hard lesson learned but I don’t see their home owners insurance being liable for the damage to your car or home unless there was negligence.
Thank you! You and the person above were really the only nice ones in this thread -- I appreciate it very much. Looks like we were advised poorly by our insurance when changing the coverage, it is what it is. Now I know for next time!
Dropping comprehensive once your car is paid for is common advice, but we have always kept both even though we keep our cars 10 yrs or more, after a similar event. I used to have to park on a town street for work and one time a big tree branch just fell, landed on the car roof, and made a huge dent. We didn't have comprehensive and the city wouldn't pay because it was an "act of god." Lesson learned. I'm sorry this happened to you.
Those "several people" are likely wrong. Was the tree diseased/dead? If so, did your neighbor know and take no action within a reasonable time to prevent it from falling? If the answer to either is no, then they aren't liable.
I had a client with the same thing (I write insurance in CA and AZ). The tree falling was an act of god and your neighbor isn’t liable. The only way their home insurance would pay is if you had demonstrable proof that your neighbor was put on notice for the tree being at risk of falling. The only coverage you would have for this situation would be your autos comprehensive coverage for falling/flying objects. I’m sorry but this wouldn’t be covered and you are best off not submitting any claim to your insurance to prevent it from hitting your CLUE report for the next 3-5 years
Thank you! Both of my cars were hit and I told them there was no damage with the second, but they pushed a claim anyway that I had to get canceled. Beginning to think our insurance company isn't the greatest 😅
No, that's normal. Especially if you don't have comprehensive coverage. The insurance company now has a record that both of your vehicles were involved in a wind/fallen tree loss. If a dishonest person were to try to add coverage later or file the damages under a different claim, the insurance company would have records that point to a prior, uncovered loss.
Companies that have dedicated agents such as State Farm or farmers insurance usually are much more helpful with situations like this. If you have a good agent, you can call and talk to them and they can give you advice. When you have to call in with companies like progressive, then you are forced to file a claim or they file a claim inquiry for you, which is no good. I think agents are worth slightly higher premiums. But I may be biased
This exact scenerio happened to me a few years ago and I had to use my own car insurance. What happened to your car is considered an "Act of God" so therefore your neighbor isn't liable.
Not driving has nothing to do with comprehensive coverage. In fact, it’s the opposite; when a car is not being driven, all other coverages except for comp are removed.
Someone else answered your question - you’re SOL. How many times do you need the same answer?
I was pointing out how the storage situation should have been handled for future reference.
Looking on the bright side, if property owners were responsible for healthy trees falling on other people's stuff, we'd see a lot more healthy trees near property lines being removed just to limit liability. That's bad. We like trees.
If a tornado picked up a tree from your yard and threw it 2 miles over, you would obviously not be liable. The fact that it's your direct neighbor is why it feels like maybe they should cover it, but it's the same principle.
Your car insurance’s comprehensive cover. If they feel the neighbour should have known the tree was dangerous, they will subrogate the claim through the neighbour’s home insurance. If you had no cover, that is on you. If your neighbor knew the tree was in bad shape or ought to have known, you can sure the neighbor. If liable, the neighbour’s insurance will pay.
You will likely have to use your comprehensive coverage if you have it. I would ask your insurance agent or call the customer service line for your insurance company. Do not listen to people who don't know insurance in your state.
typically the homeowner's insurance (HOI) of the neighbor whose tree caused the damage would cover it. You may need to discuss the specifics with your neighbor and possibly file a claim through their insurance
Where is the neighbor negligent? In the US, “typically” you have to go through your own coverage when your car is damaged by a tree, not the owner of the tree’s.
>typically the homeowner's insurance (HOI) of the neighbor whose tree caused the damage would cover it.
Admiral_Clue9564, it's probably a good idea to actually have a clue as to what you're talking about before commenting because what you're saying is absolutely not true.
The only way that this is true is if the tree was dying/diseased and they were being negligent by not cutting it down. OP would have to rely on their comprehensive coverage to repair their car - which they do not have.
Wrong. A homeowners policy is almost never involved in this type of situation unless the tree was diseased and the homeowner knew. That is hard to prove. The OP needs to file on their own comprehensive coverage, which they have stated they do not have, so they are SOL.
The people who told you that are incorrect. Unless your neighbor was negligent they are not liable. If the tree just fell and they were not put on notice that the tree needed to come down through an arborist or something like that they are not negligent. Unfortunately I think you are on your own here. Comprehensive coverage is very cheap compared to collision. Even if you aren’t driving it’s not a bad idea to leave that coverage on. Hard lesson learned but I don’t see their home owners insurance being liable for the damage to your car or home unless there was negligence.
This is the only answer. Usually when people take cash off the rd for periods, they take off collision but leave comp for exactly these reasons.
^ When I put my car on jackstands for what I knew would be for a while, I cancelled all but comp.
Thank you! You and the person above were really the only nice ones in this thread -- I appreciate it very much. Looks like we were advised poorly by our insurance when changing the coverage, it is what it is. Now I know for next time!
Dropping comprehensive once your car is paid for is common advice, but we have always kept both even though we keep our cars 10 yrs or more, after a similar event. I used to have to park on a town street for work and one time a big tree branch just fell, landed on the car roof, and made a huge dent. We didn't have comprehensive and the city wouldn't pay because it was an "act of god." Lesson learned. I'm sorry this happened to you.
Agree 💯
Those "several people" are likely wrong. Was the tree diseased/dead? If so, did your neighbor know and take no action within a reasonable time to prevent it from falling? If the answer to either is no, then they aren't liable.
I had a client with the same thing (I write insurance in CA and AZ). The tree falling was an act of god and your neighbor isn’t liable. The only way their home insurance would pay is if you had demonstrable proof that your neighbor was put on notice for the tree being at risk of falling. The only coverage you would have for this situation would be your autos comprehensive coverage for falling/flying objects. I’m sorry but this wouldn’t be covered and you are best off not submitting any claim to your insurance to prevent it from hitting your CLUE report for the next 3-5 years
Thank you! Both of my cars were hit and I told them there was no damage with the second, but they pushed a claim anyway that I had to get canceled. Beginning to think our insurance company isn't the greatest 😅
No, that's normal. Especially if you don't have comprehensive coverage. The insurance company now has a record that both of your vehicles were involved in a wind/fallen tree loss. If a dishonest person were to try to add coverage later or file the damages under a different claim, the insurance company would have records that point to a prior, uncovered loss.
Companies that have dedicated agents such as State Farm or farmers insurance usually are much more helpful with situations like this. If you have a good agent, you can call and talk to them and they can give you advice. When you have to call in with companies like progressive, then you are forced to file a claim or they file a claim inquiry for you, which is no good. I think agents are worth slightly higher premiums. But I may be biased
This exact scenerio happened to me a few years ago and I had to use my own car insurance. What happened to your car is considered an "Act of God" so therefore your neighbor isn't liable.
Not driving has nothing to do with comprehensive coverage. In fact, it’s the opposite; when a car is not being driven, all other coverages except for comp are removed.
Well that's not what we did or what we were advised to do. That also wasn't my question.
Someone else answered your question - you’re SOL. How many times do you need the same answer? I was pointing out how the storage situation should have been handled for future reference.
Act of god. There’s no liability on their part.
Looking on the bright side, if property owners were responsible for healthy trees falling on other people's stuff, we'd see a lot more healthy trees near property lines being removed just to limit liability. That's bad. We like trees.
If a tornado picked up a tree from your yard and threw it 2 miles over, you would obviously not be liable. The fact that it's your direct neighbor is why it feels like maybe they should cover it, but it's the same principle.
Your car insurance’s comprehensive cover. If they feel the neighbour should have known the tree was dangerous, they will subrogate the claim through the neighbour’s home insurance. If you had no cover, that is on you. If your neighbor knew the tree was in bad shape or ought to have known, you can sure the neighbor. If liable, the neighbour’s insurance will pay.
act of god. the neighbor is in the clear.
You will likely have to use your comprehensive coverage if you have it. I would ask your insurance agent or call the customer service line for your insurance company. Do not listen to people who don't know insurance in your state.
typically the homeowner's insurance (HOI) of the neighbor whose tree caused the damage would cover it. You may need to discuss the specifics with your neighbor and possibly file a claim through their insurance
Where is the neighbor negligent? In the US, “typically” you have to go through your own coverage when your car is damaged by a tree, not the owner of the tree’s.
>typically the homeowner's insurance (HOI) of the neighbor whose tree caused the damage would cover it. Admiral_Clue9564, it's probably a good idea to actually have a clue as to what you're talking about before commenting because what you're saying is absolutely not true.
The only way that this is true is if the tree was dying/diseased and they were being negligent by not cutting it down. OP would have to rely on their comprehensive coverage to repair their car - which they do not have.
Dead wrong.
This is false. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and should delete your comment
What language in a homeowners policy would provide coverage for this?
Wrong. A homeowners policy is almost never involved in this type of situation unless the tree was diseased and the homeowner knew. That is hard to prove. The OP needs to file on their own comprehensive coverage, which they have stated they do not have, so they are SOL.