This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that.
If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity.
If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees.
*This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In this scenario Id call having full coverage on a vehicle of that age OVER insured because the premium would easily and quickly exceed the value the insurance company will value it at. (full coverage would have costed 2k extra over 4 years and they would only pay out 1450 after a deductible) (market value is different than insurance value)
just dosent make sense and there's a negative return on investment
Your words come across judgmental and having a lack of empathy especially in this time of loss
me personally id feel morally responsible
like i was saying I have a vague understanding of the laws but it doesn't seem right they want to have a tree but are not responsible for if it falls
as i was saying the law feels harsh and un-fair
so its my fault my neighbors want to have a tree but not be responsible for it? is the reverse of
they are not responsible the car wasn't fully insured
is like saying if I wanted an aquarium and my tank leaked into downstairs neighbors apartment "well its not my fault"
I dont need an aquarium. they dont need a tree
I suffer for thier wants
if someone has a tree they should be responsible
I guess im looking for clarification on why the law is this way seems unfair
again it seems wrong someone car can be crushed and they lose the ability to get to work or use thier car for work lose thier income and become homeless and the owner of tree is sipping martinis
DOWNVOTE = I dont want to be responsible and i dont care about others. or tell me where im wrong in my line of thinking
I understand the law im saying I dont think its just
who said the law always was just
Tree branches falling are considered an “act of God” unless the tree was diseased/dead and the neighbor was warned about it by an arborist.
If a healthy tree has limbs that stretch over the property line, you have a right and responsibility to trim them yourself.
If the branch fell onto your car, that means you were parked close to the property line and the branch was hanging over the property line? That means you could have cut the branch off, but didn’t? Why park a classic car under a tree branch that could fall on your car?
yes i understand that
but another act of god isnt going to come and give someone transportation so they dont become homeless with no work
im saying the law dosent seem fair and can easily leave people in a severe situation
people should be better protected
as we have covered not every car justifies full coverage if its older and say that person already cant afford full coverage maybe bad driving record you know they cant afford to replace vehicle on a whim
im saying i think that is just simply un fair and how homeless people can be made or how villains are born
If the roles were reversed should you be responsible? What if it wasn’t even a tree? If your mailbox gets hit by lightening and the wind smashes it into your neighbor’s car, should you be responsible because you had a mailbox?
The law is set up to protect trees for the greater good since we all need them to live.
Yes I would feel morally responsible and if I was in office id make a change
Mail box is a fake scenario that dosent happen regularly or ever
the law should protect people form losing assets and potentially becoming homeless
Did you check if your renters or home owners insurance covers this damage? Some have umbrella policies for anything on the property.
This is precisely what insurance is for. You took a calculated risk, and it did not pay off.
You may feel the mailbox example is silly, but it isn't. Or imagine a different scenario: flash flood, car destroyed. It's an act of God and no one is to blame.
I know you're in a tough spot, but you need to focus on what you can do now to survive if you're worried about homelessness.
im gonna see what the home owner insurance has to say but im not waiting for a miracle
I will survive this is my classic project car but i am taking significant loss
Insurance companies dont value classic cars properly it was a 2500 dollar car to insurance
so full coverage just dosent make sense to pay 2k extra for 4 years and only get a 1500 check after a deductible
if i got a check for it would be 1500 if i gave insurance 2k over 4 years
it was a safe bet and it actually worked its just the game with classic cars
i can go buy a clunker and swap my good parts over but no one wants to do that and its a pain I already restored this one
and the neighbors dont own a flood. to even think they would be responsible is insane
but if they want to have trees they should be responsible for if it falls
people are responsible for thier dogs
They own a flood? What?
I mean, it sounds like you have an expensive hobby. I understand the math, but again, calculated risk to have a classic car and no garage or correct insurance.
that's what im saying the neighbor does not own a flood so there no reason for them to be linked to a flood
correct insurance does not exist on classic cars thats an oxy moron they charge an insane premium and you agree on it being a certain value and its generally not worth it and has stipulations like must have garage which I do not
what if i had a 25k stone sculpture that was smashed? ha i guess that is home owners but i shouldnt be responsible for neighbors tree that fell into my yard is the point. just sucks I picked the wrong hobby? very un fair imo
Trees exist naturally. They sometimes fall. Shit happens. It’s sucks but your neighbor did nothing to cause your loss. Why should they have to pay for it?
Its your fault for parking it there. The neighbor didn't park it there. You did. The neighbor also didn't purchase your car. So this is a you problem. Sounds like the insurance denied a claim? Also that you underinsured your car. I mean if this car is so special why wasn't it in the garage?
Car was in my driveway
I dont have a garage
full coverage would have costed 2k extra over 4 years and they would only pay out 1450 after a deductible market value is different than insurance value
TLDR I would have lost 550 dollars over 4 years on full coverage if i got a payout today so it would be over insured not under
custom classic polices exists for cars but do have stipulations like needed a garage and the premiums are insane
how is my fault for wanting to keep something safe on my own property and my neighbors tree comes down on it
your missing why I saved the 550 and why its not worth it
its because market value is different than the value insurance places on classic cars
car can be worth 10k on street but insurance would only value it at 2500 and then say a 1k deductible id get a 1500 dollar check after paying higher premium for nothing
again paying for full coverage would have exceeded the value of the vehicle in the time i owned it its pretty cut and dry
again even today insurance would have only given me 1500 bucks
yes but if we do math thats like giving someone (insurance) 2k and if you crash (have a tree fall on you) they give you 1500
ill just keep my money
its the same thing
idk how to make it more clear tbh
If the $550 was not worth it then why are you posting? You seem totally cognizant of the fact your car wasn’t appraised by insurance for what it was worth because you didn’t want to pay more to insurance.
What is there to debate? You would be in the same exact situation if you got t-boned in an intersection as insurance would only cover the cost of the car as it’s appraised.
The only difference is that there is no secondary party in the accident with the falling branch. It’s between you and your insurance.
So if you had suffered hail damage, literally beating your car to a pulp, which is considered an act of God, would you be in any different financial position? What about a tornado? What about another liability only motorist who broad sided you in a traffic accident?
In ALL of these situations, you’d find yourself in EXACTLY the same situation financially, give or take the deductible in the case of another driver.
Truly classic cars aren’t daily drivers, but stored away as part of a collection, whether the collection contains 1 or 43 classics and collectables.
You knew the risks of choosing the amount and type of insurance you did. Now you are whining about it.
This isn’t a total loss, because the true classic can be repaired… and may very well be worth doing so. But even if it isn’t, take the loss as a tax deduction, lowering your taxable income due to uninsured loss. This is also a relatively low cost life lesson. You know you are underinsured and you also know what will take to acquire appropriate coverage for a classic automobile.
my neighbor does not chose to own a hail storm
like i said the cost of insurance out valued the vehicle on a payout (pay them 2k over 4 years and get back 1500 after a 1k decutable)
No, but you chose not to trim branches that overhung the property line… and you could have. You apparently didn’t consider the tree a threat because you not only didn’t perceive the risk, insure appropriately against the risk and chose to park your “classic” under a tree.
Branches fall… straight down. It’s rare for a large branch to break under normal conditions, but it isn’t unforeseen that branches can be broken and fall during a storm.
This is WHY we carry insurance.
Now, if you are a tenant, rather than the homeowner, you might find additional sources of recovery through the homeowner’s policy, though to be frank, you are likely to come to a similar valuation and payout, albeit sans deductible.
Ahhh, so the neighbor wasn’t at all negligent and neither were you… so it truly is an act of God, EXACTLY like a hailstorm or a tornado.
If the branch in question wasn’t across the property line, there is no way that your neighbor could have anticipated that branch would break and then be carried by the wind across the property line and land with such force as to cause total destruction of your vehicle.
This is why we have laws that govern in these situations, because there have to be reasonable lines of responsibility, which when crossed, bring with them negligence and other legal consequences for either actions or inaction.
Would you feel responsible if the apparently high wind storm had blown off part of your roof and killed a child next door?
Of course not, no reasonable person would. They might have empathy, but empathy and responsibility for events beyond their control are worlds apart. There is no way a reasonable person could anticipate such an event.
Downvote = you came to treelaw for advice and now being a jackass the feedback.
Look up the law, you’re SOL. Deal with it and stop crying foul against people.
It’s better for you to remain silent and appear stupid, than to start replying and remove all doubt.
You are talking about the tree like you think it’s an unruly pet lmao, put a leash on that thing. This is considered an act of god and is covered under comprehensive insurance that most people don’t have but only costs a few bucks a month, this is also why I over insure my vehicles, it doesn’t cost much unless you already have a bad record
my car was only worth 2500 to insurance because of its age (insurance dosent care about classic cars)
after a 1k deductible that is a 1500 pay out
would cost me 2k over 4 years to get a 1500 payout
the math dosent math up (also why the title says its not worth the money on paper to fully insure)
and im only making comparisons about things that people own and are living and can cause sever damage
putting it on a leash would be properly maintaining it
no they really dont value classic cars properly simply because there is not enough transactions to sample from and condition is the big variant
you have to get what is called an agreed upon value policy and the cost of the premium is not worth it
i dont care about your preferences or taste
one mans treasure is another's junk
cars 25 years or older can be considered classics as far as DMV is concerned
a 45 year old car is an antique
My comp or “act of god” coverage adds maybe $5 a month, and is what covers me fully in this situation. You need to sit down with your insurance provider and get the coverage you need.
Classic car insurance companies care about classic cars. I have a classic car. I insure it through Hagerty. My car is 48 years old. If my car is wrecked, Hagerty will pay me $ 30,000, which is what I have it insured for since that is what it is "worth" today, as a classic car. The insurance costs about $ 300/year.
For me in NJ hagerty and others want a garage
I do have comprehensive though but its not fair i have to make a claim on my insurance because neighbor wants to own a tree
Either you’re not looking at the right insurance companies or there is some other factor such as your driving record or location that indicates high risk to the insurance companies. I (and everyone I’ve ever talked to that owns a classic car) have insured classic cars for years and it is always significantly cheaper than using one of the “big” insurance companies even when declaring a value higher than KBB. Hagerty is the main one that comes to mind but there are others.
From what I can tell OP explored classic car insurance but they value the car significantly higher than any appraisal or recent sale so decided against it as the extra 50 a month wasn't worth it.
and that was just for basic full coverage
not a classic car Agreed upon vale policy
im in NJ insurance is insane
the names mentions for companies generally want a garage for a agreed upon value policy i dont have a garage
many variables
It's not variables, it's risk.
Buying a classic car: Risk
Buying a classic car without a Garage: Risk
Not being able to get Classic Car insurance: Risk
Not going for the larger full coverage due to cost: Risk
Storing in your driveway vs a storage unit: Risk
Not having an umbrella policy: Risk
What you say are variables are all decisions you made when you bought the car. You decided that the above risks were worth it for a classic car and those risks came back to haunt you.
Custom car, true value insurance is widely available that could have protected you from this. Why you didn't invest in that, especially when this appears to be your only transportation, is something only you can explain. The tree falling is no different than if you had hit a animal while driving. You should understand the limitations of your coverage. I have carried full coverage on every vehicle I've owned for the past 25 years, even the shit boxes I've used to commute to work. I knew going in that the pay out wouldn't come close to covering replacement, but it would be better than nothing.
Bottom line- Read your policies, understand them, and get better coverage if you aren't happy.
i was making an example I have other cars
Insurance in NJ is insane and proved to not be worth full coverage
you need a garage for most if not all Agreed upon value policies
That may be the case and if so, you knew the risk of owning such a car.
You say the neighbor should help you out because it's morally correct. What if the scenario was reversed? Would you be able to cough up thousands of dollars to help replace the neighbors car? Seems like you need to be prepared to do so if you think that's the right way to handle things. If you can come up with money to help your neighbor you should be able to come up with money to fix/replace your own car.
im actually a backyard mechanic and help all friend and famliy fix cars
I have something called empathy
Ill call dave ramsey and ask him if he would feel morally responsible im pretty sure he would
your point has no meaning yeah will take me time to fix car if it even possible
Well one thing I know Dave would say is you should have an emergency fund of 6 months worth of expenses, which would go a long way toward fixing either your car or your neighbors.
My point was if you expect your neighbor to make whole on principal as you put it, you should also be prepared to do so if the scenario was reversed. Apparently that isn't the case for you since you are claiming this is going to lead to you being homeless. You expect something from others that you aren't capable of giving yourself. This isn't their problem no matter how much you cry about morals you can't even uphold on your end for someone else.
Are you completely unaware of classic car/show car insurance? My dad has a 1973 Buick Riviera. He paid $30k for it and it's insured for $30k. His premium is under $1k/year. If his car gets totaled, insurance will pay out $30k minus his deductible.
Have you asked your insurance to find you a vehicle of the same age, make, model, condition, and approximate mileage and buy it for you instead of paying out? Your vehicle should not be valued simply by age, it is valued by what a comparable vehicle can be purchased for. And you can’t buy a classic collector’s car in decent condition for $2500, so your insurance company is bonkers.
classic cars are a risky game unless your a rich man ready to pay expensive insurance premiums to have an "agreed upon value policy" but its expensive and has requirements like needs a garage
This is exactly what agreed value insurance is for. I have a collectable car and I pay for collector's insurance as a result. What I paid for the car or what NADA says it's worth is completely irrelevant. I set the value ($45k) and that's what the insurance pays of the car is totaled. The restrictions are that I can't use the car for commuting and it is in my garage at night when I'm not traveling in it. Costs me $300 a year.
progressive wanted an extra 50 a month just to value it at 2500
i owned the car 5 years and the bet paid off
id have paid 2k over 4 years and gotten 1450 after a deductible
Using Progressive, Geico, or even one like NJM is part of your problem here. You really need to be going to a company like Grundy or Hagerty for a specialty policy for anything classic or collectible.
Insurance is generally for things you really can't afford to replace. If the deductible makes up a large amount of the value of the item, it's probably not worth insuring except as an aggregate. You dont make a claim on one lost spoon, but when all of the valuables in the house were stolen.
Classic cars are odd, they don't really have a replacement value that matches their emotional value, as their general market value is quite low compared to the time and effort that goes into restoration. But that time and effort isn't insurable. If my raised garden bed gets smashed by a falling branch, I'm not getting assembly time, I'm getting materials costs. Your car is similar.
You had property worth $2500. It was damaged by random bad luck. Is that worth the $1k deductible? Maybe maybe not. It's no one's fault. Sometimes bad stuff happens. That's why you have insurance. I would recommend talking to a local insurance agent who can better explain to you what it makes sense for you to have coverage for.
If they knew that it was a danger that they could fix, that's on them, but a healthy tree existing isn't something that's a hazard. If it was a *dead* branch over your property, that would usually be your responsibility.
im a renter but yes if i had control id have done something sooner
car worth more obviously but as far as insurance goes they dont care
also restoration is definitely part of value
Here's the thing you seem to keep missing: that car is not worth more actual cash money to most other people. If you tried to sell it, that's what you would probably get on the open market.
Is the experience of fixing it up worth more to you? Absolutely, but that's not what anyone will pay for it.
Then you should present that information to your insurance company that they valued it incorrectly. Odds are excellent though that they know a lot more about how much cars are actually worth than you do though. They rely on multiple different sources whose full time job is to understand automobile markets, and are probably going to know more than you.
Random auction prices are not representative samples of usual sales. They are outliers. You would need to prove that your vehicle is (was) an outlier, but if it actually was, then you should have had it insured as such, but you did not. Either because it wasn't actually worth that, or you did not understand insurance, or possibly both.
What your car *might* have gotten at auction *if* you'd done XYZ does not change what it was worth when the branch landed on it.
If it's actually a collector, odds are excellent that the parts that survived are still worth something, often more than the value of the car as a whole, or that the car is entirely salvageable but not "worth replacing" from an insurance value point of view. Realistically, you should know that if it's actually a particularly interesting vehicle.
It seems like you're missing a lot of important information about something you care about protecting. It is probably worth learning about it rather than getting defensive about things that you dont seem to understand.
Im a car sales person and a backyard mechnic who resotred the car
you made so many inccorect assumptions I dont know where to start
so i wont
but ill say to get a special insurance policy for classic cars you need a garage which i dont have
Sunshine, you came here either whining or asking for advice, and you've recieved a lot that is remarkably consistent and all boils down to the fact that you have made a number of incorrect assumptions about how the world works. Information that you should know to be true, because you've seen the outcomes thereof.
You don't seem to be inclined to learn and seem unwilling to fix your ignorance, so you have a lovely rest of your day, I'll try to help folks who want to do better.
As a fellow car guy I'm for your loss, but you are wrong here.
You are under-insured. Policies exist for classic cars, but may carry stipulations and varied cost based on many things, just like 'normal' insurance. It sounds like you sorta tired to get insured but then settled on the lesser coverage. That was your choice and, unfortunately, you are facing the consequences.
It's not fair, but it's how the world works. The situation you are in is no different than if you were to get in an accident with someone without insurance, or you were at fault. As many have said, trees are an act of God so you don't have someone to directly blame. But, if you had the uninsured driver accident what do you think the outcome would be? You can try to sue the individual, if you think you can prove it was their fault. Even if you win, would that person be able to pay for the damage? How much time and energy would go into getting the value? How long would it take to get that judgment?
Insurance sucks, but we get it to do the stuff listed above for us (and because in most places we legally have to have something to drive). I sympathize with the situation your are in, but it was your choice to own that car and have that coverage and park in that place. Those are all risks you took (whether you understood them fully or not).
YTA. Tree fell on your uninsured / underinsured car. You want to whine about it here, keep getting told that your whining is legally and morally ridiculous, and you keep arguing with everyone, repeating the same ridiculous things. So, yea, YTA. Grow up.
You had multiple options to protect your car.
1. Don't park it under a tree.
2. Put it in a garage. Or heck, even buy one of those carports with sturdy metal frames and park it in there.
3. Hire a certified arborist to properly trim the tree limbs to your property line so the tree doesn't overhang your parking space.
4. Get proper classic car insurance, which does exist.
5. Store your expensive classic car offsite where there aren't any overhanging trees.
But you did not choose to do any of that. The loss of your car is not your neighbor's fault. You could have mitigated this damage in so many different ways.
So be on notice. A tree or tree limbs falling from an otherwise healthy tree is the responsibility of the property owner where the debris falls. Mitigate your risk properly in the future.
This is so ungrammatical that I’m unable to follow it. OP parked under a tree and a branch fell on their car? And the neighbour/tree owner’s insurance won’t pay out? Something about a car being “classic” but also not worth much?
insurance companies dont value classic cars like they do regular cars so its often very low unless you get an expensive policy that requires a garage but i dont have one
reminiscent judicious stupendous fact bewildered frightening unpack sink joke mindless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Whose insurance isn't covering? Neighbor? Yours?
I'd have filed the claim against the neighbor's insurance company. They cause the loss, they pay the boss.
apparently not and i agree with you but allot of people came out with the pitch forks to roast me cuz the law says my auto insuance is supposed to cover it
dosent seem fair i have to make a claim for someone elses tree
My take is that I have every right to be made whole for a covered loss. I wouldn't even look at my insurance for this. Not my tree, not my deductible. Pay me.
It all depends on how your state defines an insurable loss. A neighbor's tree falls on my car, I'm filing a claim against his insurance. Seems straightforward to me.
But that's not how it works in most places. The tree owners insurance is just going to reply with, "yeah, that's an act of God not covered by this policy, bye"
OP is conflating ownership and responsibility for the damage... It's no different (legally and to insurance companies) then the car getting destroyed by a lightning strike. They just have a target since they can point and say, "that's your tree"
unfortunately in most places its the responsibility of the owner of the property that was damaged as its "an act of nature" but nature didnt force my neighbor to have a tree
This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that. If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity. If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees. *This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Assuming an otherwise healthy tree, yes you’re out of luck. It is not your neighbour’s problem you have under insured your car.
In this scenario Id call having full coverage on a vehicle of that age OVER insured because the premium would easily and quickly exceed the value the insurance company will value it at. (full coverage would have costed 2k extra over 4 years and they would only pay out 1450 after a deductible) (market value is different than insurance value) just dosent make sense and there's a negative return on investment Your words come across judgmental and having a lack of empathy especially in this time of loss me personally id feel morally responsible like i was saying I have a vague understanding of the laws but it doesn't seem right they want to have a tree but are not responsible for if it falls as i was saying the law feels harsh and un-fair so its my fault my neighbors want to have a tree but not be responsible for it? is the reverse of they are not responsible the car wasn't fully insured is like saying if I wanted an aquarium and my tank leaked into downstairs neighbors apartment "well its not my fault" I dont need an aquarium. they dont need a tree I suffer for thier wants if someone has a tree they should be responsible I guess im looking for clarification on why the law is this way seems unfair again it seems wrong someone car can be crushed and they lose the ability to get to work or use thier car for work lose thier income and become homeless and the owner of tree is sipping martinis DOWNVOTE = I dont want to be responsible and i dont care about others. or tell me where im wrong in my line of thinking I understand the law im saying I dont think its just who said the law always was just
Tree branches falling are considered an “act of God” unless the tree was diseased/dead and the neighbor was warned about it by an arborist. If a healthy tree has limbs that stretch over the property line, you have a right and responsibility to trim them yourself.
If the branch fell onto your car, that means you were parked close to the property line and the branch was hanging over the property line? That means you could have cut the branch off, but didn’t? Why park a classic car under a tree branch that could fall on your car?
trees exist but if someone shouldn't have 25 to 30 foot trees in a suburb and have no resposbility for it
Healthy trees don’t just fall over.
yes i understand that but another act of god isnt going to come and give someone transportation so they dont become homeless with no work im saying the law dosent seem fair and can easily leave people in a severe situation people should be better protected as we have covered not every car justifies full coverage if its older and say that person already cant afford full coverage maybe bad driving record you know they cant afford to replace vehicle on a whim im saying i think that is just simply un fair and how homeless people can be made or how villains are born
If the roles were reversed should you be responsible? What if it wasn’t even a tree? If your mailbox gets hit by lightening and the wind smashes it into your neighbor’s car, should you be responsible because you had a mailbox? The law is set up to protect trees for the greater good since we all need them to live.
Yes I would feel morally responsible and if I was in office id make a change Mail box is a fake scenario that dosent happen regularly or ever the law should protect people form losing assets and potentially becoming homeless
Did you check if your renters or home owners insurance covers this damage? Some have umbrella policies for anything on the property. This is precisely what insurance is for. You took a calculated risk, and it did not pay off. You may feel the mailbox example is silly, but it isn't. Or imagine a different scenario: flash flood, car destroyed. It's an act of God and no one is to blame. I know you're in a tough spot, but you need to focus on what you can do now to survive if you're worried about homelessness.
im gonna see what the home owner insurance has to say but im not waiting for a miracle I will survive this is my classic project car but i am taking significant loss Insurance companies dont value classic cars properly it was a 2500 dollar car to insurance so full coverage just dosent make sense to pay 2k extra for 4 years and only get a 1500 check after a deductible if i got a check for it would be 1500 if i gave insurance 2k over 4 years it was a safe bet and it actually worked its just the game with classic cars i can go buy a clunker and swap my good parts over but no one wants to do that and its a pain I already restored this one and the neighbors dont own a flood. to even think they would be responsible is insane but if they want to have trees they should be responsible for if it falls people are responsible for thier dogs
They own a flood? What? I mean, it sounds like you have an expensive hobby. I understand the math, but again, calculated risk to have a classic car and no garage or correct insurance.
that's what im saying the neighbor does not own a flood so there no reason for them to be linked to a flood correct insurance does not exist on classic cars thats an oxy moron they charge an insane premium and you agree on it being a certain value and its generally not worth it and has stipulations like must have garage which I do not what if i had a 25k stone sculpture that was smashed? ha i guess that is home owners but i shouldnt be responsible for neighbors tree that fell into my yard is the point. just sucks I picked the wrong hobby? very un fair imo
Trees exist naturally. They sometimes fall. Shit happens. It’s sucks but your neighbor did nothing to cause your loss. Why should they have to pay for it?
Its your fault for parking it there. The neighbor didn't park it there. You did. The neighbor also didn't purchase your car. So this is a you problem. Sounds like the insurance denied a claim? Also that you underinsured your car. I mean if this car is so special why wasn't it in the garage?
Car was in my driveway I dont have a garage full coverage would have costed 2k extra over 4 years and they would only pay out 1450 after a deductible market value is different than insurance value TLDR I would have lost 550 dollars over 4 years on full coverage if i got a payout today so it would be over insured not under custom classic polices exists for cars but do have stipulations like needed a garage and the premiums are insane how is my fault for wanting to keep something safe on my own property and my neighbors tree comes down on it
Well you sure saved that 550 for 4 years didn't you?
your missing why I saved the 550 and why its not worth it its because market value is different than the value insurance places on classic cars car can be worth 10k on street but insurance would only value it at 2500 and then say a 1k deductible id get a 1500 dollar check after paying higher premium for nothing again paying for full coverage would have exceeded the value of the vehicle in the time i owned it its pretty cut and dry again even today insurance would have only given me 1500 bucks
But you would have gotten paid out when the tree landed on the car?
yes but if we do math thats like giving someone (insurance) 2k and if you crash (have a tree fall on you) they give you 1500 ill just keep my money its the same thing idk how to make it more clear tbh
If the $550 was not worth it then why are you posting? You seem totally cognizant of the fact your car wasn’t appraised by insurance for what it was worth because you didn’t want to pay more to insurance. What is there to debate? You would be in the same exact situation if you got t-boned in an intersection as insurance would only cover the cost of the car as it’s appraised. The only difference is that there is no secondary party in the accident with the falling branch. It’s between you and your insurance.
There's tons of insurers for classic cars that deal with this every day.
So if you had suffered hail damage, literally beating your car to a pulp, which is considered an act of God, would you be in any different financial position? What about a tornado? What about another liability only motorist who broad sided you in a traffic accident? In ALL of these situations, you’d find yourself in EXACTLY the same situation financially, give or take the deductible in the case of another driver. Truly classic cars aren’t daily drivers, but stored away as part of a collection, whether the collection contains 1 or 43 classics and collectables. You knew the risks of choosing the amount and type of insurance you did. Now you are whining about it. This isn’t a total loss, because the true classic can be repaired… and may very well be worth doing so. But even if it isn’t, take the loss as a tax deduction, lowering your taxable income due to uninsured loss. This is also a relatively low cost life lesson. You know you are underinsured and you also know what will take to acquire appropriate coverage for a classic automobile.
my neighbor does not chose to own a hail storm like i said the cost of insurance out valued the vehicle on a payout (pay them 2k over 4 years and get back 1500 after a 1k decutable)
No, but you chose not to trim branches that overhung the property line… and you could have. You apparently didn’t consider the tree a threat because you not only didn’t perceive the risk, insure appropriately against the risk and chose to park your “classic” under a tree. Branches fall… straight down. It’s rare for a large branch to break under normal conditions, but it isn’t unforeseen that branches can be broken and fall during a storm. This is WHY we carry insurance. Now, if you are a tenant, rather than the homeowner, you might find additional sources of recovery through the homeowner’s policy, though to be frank, you are likely to come to a similar valuation and payout, albeit sans deductible.
is was from thier side the wind took it
Ahhh, so the neighbor wasn’t at all negligent and neither were you… so it truly is an act of God, EXACTLY like a hailstorm or a tornado. If the branch in question wasn’t across the property line, there is no way that your neighbor could have anticipated that branch would break and then be carried by the wind across the property line and land with such force as to cause total destruction of your vehicle. This is why we have laws that govern in these situations, because there have to be reasonable lines of responsibility, which when crossed, bring with them negligence and other legal consequences for either actions or inaction. Would you feel responsible if the apparently high wind storm had blown off part of your roof and killed a child next door? Of course not, no reasonable person would. They might have empathy, but empathy and responsibility for events beyond their control are worlds apart. There is no way a reasonable person could anticipate such an event.
people have to have roofs the dont have to have 30 foot trees
So wind is an act of god lol
Downvote = you came to treelaw for advice and now being a jackass the feedback. Look up the law, you’re SOL. Deal with it and stop crying foul against people. It’s better for you to remain silent and appear stupid, than to start replying and remove all doubt.
ha i was never rude to anyone who didnt have an antagonistic attitude because i return what i receive i hope you have a better day than me :)
You are talking about the tree like you think it’s an unruly pet lmao, put a leash on that thing. This is considered an act of god and is covered under comprehensive insurance that most people don’t have but only costs a few bucks a month, this is also why I over insure my vehicles, it doesn’t cost much unless you already have a bad record
my car was only worth 2500 to insurance because of its age (insurance dosent care about classic cars) after a 1k deductible that is a 1500 pay out would cost me 2k over 4 years to get a 1500 payout the math dosent math up (also why the title says its not worth the money on paper to fully insure) and im only making comparisons about things that people own and are living and can cause sever damage putting it on a leash would be properly maintaining it
Insurance companies do care about classic cars, they don’t care about junkers that people call classic…
no they really dont value classic cars properly simply because there is not enough transactions to sample from and condition is the big variant you have to get what is called an agreed upon value policy and the cost of the premium is not worth it i dont care about your preferences or taste one mans treasure is another's junk cars 25 years or older can be considered classics as far as DMV is concerned a 45 year old car is an antique
My comp or “act of god” coverage adds maybe $5 a month, and is what covers me fully in this situation. You need to sit down with your insurance provider and get the coverage you need.
like I was saying to add that to this car would be about an extra 2500 over 4 years and they only paying out 1500 after a deductible its not worth it
Wrong, see insurers that specialize in classic cars but yes you have to pay for it.
Classic car insurance companies care about classic cars. I have a classic car. I insure it through Hagerty. My car is 48 years old. If my car is wrecked, Hagerty will pay me $ 30,000, which is what I have it insured for since that is what it is "worth" today, as a classic car. The insurance costs about $ 300/year.
I dont have a garage
So?
For me in NJ hagerty and others want a garage I do have comprehensive though but its not fair i have to make a claim on my insurance because neighbor wants to own a tree
Either you’re not looking at the right insurance companies or there is some other factor such as your driving record or location that indicates high risk to the insurance companies. I (and everyone I’ve ever talked to that owns a classic car) have insured classic cars for years and it is always significantly cheaper than using one of the “big” insurance companies even when declaring a value higher than KBB. Hagerty is the main one that comes to mind but there are others.
From what I can tell OP explored classic car insurance but they value the car significantly higher than any appraisal or recent sale so decided against it as the extra 50 a month wasn't worth it.
and that was just for basic full coverage not a classic car Agreed upon vale policy im in NJ insurance is insane the names mentions for companies generally want a garage for a agreed upon value policy i dont have a garage many variables
It's not variables, it's risk. Buying a classic car: Risk Buying a classic car without a Garage: Risk Not being able to get Classic Car insurance: Risk Not going for the larger full coverage due to cost: Risk Storing in your driveway vs a storage unit: Risk Not having an umbrella policy: Risk What you say are variables are all decisions you made when you bought the car. You decided that the above risks were worth it for a classic car and those risks came back to haunt you.
Custom car, true value insurance is widely available that could have protected you from this. Why you didn't invest in that, especially when this appears to be your only transportation, is something only you can explain. The tree falling is no different than if you had hit a animal while driving. You should understand the limitations of your coverage. I have carried full coverage on every vehicle I've owned for the past 25 years, even the shit boxes I've used to commute to work. I knew going in that the pay out wouldn't come close to covering replacement, but it would be better than nothing. Bottom line- Read your policies, understand them, and get better coverage if you aren't happy.
i was making an example I have other cars Insurance in NJ is insane and proved to not be worth full coverage you need a garage for most if not all Agreed upon value policies
That may be the case and if so, you knew the risk of owning such a car. You say the neighbor should help you out because it's morally correct. What if the scenario was reversed? Would you be able to cough up thousands of dollars to help replace the neighbors car? Seems like you need to be prepared to do so if you think that's the right way to handle things. If you can come up with money to help your neighbor you should be able to come up with money to fix/replace your own car.
im actually a backyard mechanic and help all friend and famliy fix cars I have something called empathy Ill call dave ramsey and ask him if he would feel morally responsible im pretty sure he would your point has no meaning yeah will take me time to fix car if it even possible
Well one thing I know Dave would say is you should have an emergency fund of 6 months worth of expenses, which would go a long way toward fixing either your car or your neighbors.
your just a jokester I could be on baby step 32 and still want to be made whole on principle
My point was if you expect your neighbor to make whole on principal as you put it, you should also be prepared to do so if the scenario was reversed. Apparently that isn't the case for you since you are claiming this is going to lead to you being homeless. You expect something from others that you aren't capable of giving yourself. This isn't their problem no matter how much you cry about morals you can't even uphold on your end for someone else.
i never said any of those words. i made case examples you have allot to say for someone who cant read im in sales make $ and im debt free clown
Are you completely unaware of classic car/show car insurance? My dad has a 1973 Buick Riviera. He paid $30k for it and it's insured for $30k. His premium is under $1k/year. If his car gets totaled, insurance will pay out $30k minus his deductible.
Have you asked your insurance to find you a vehicle of the same age, make, model, condition, and approximate mileage and buy it for you instead of paying out? Your vehicle should not be valued simply by age, it is valued by what a comparable vehicle can be purchased for. And you can’t buy a classic collector’s car in decent condition for $2500, so your insurance company is bonkers.
classic cars are a risky game unless your a rich man ready to pay expensive insurance premiums to have an "agreed upon value policy" but its expensive and has requirements like needs a garage
This is exactly what agreed value insurance is for. I have a collectable car and I pay for collector's insurance as a result. What I paid for the car or what NADA says it's worth is completely irrelevant. I set the value ($45k) and that's what the insurance pays of the car is totaled. The restrictions are that I can't use the car for commuting and it is in my garage at night when I'm not traveling in it. Costs me $300 a year.
This ⤴️ is the only answer. But unfortunately for the OP, it requires a garage that the doesn’t have.
They have car storage garages in most cities, BFE might be a different story however
who is your insurance im from NJ full cover here cost and extra 50 a month I dont have a garage unfortunately
I use Grundy for collector's insurance, all of my other insurance is through State Farm.
progressive wanted an extra 50 a month just to value it at 2500 i owned the car 5 years and the bet paid off id have paid 2k over 4 years and gotten 1450 after a deductible
Using Progressive, Geico, or even one like NJM is part of your problem here. You really need to be going to a company like Grundy or Hagerty for a specialty policy for anything classic or collectible.
you need a garage for them
JC Taylor from Pennsylvania has been extremely fair in my experience. What car got damaged??
mk2 golf GTI
Insurance is generally for things you really can't afford to replace. If the deductible makes up a large amount of the value of the item, it's probably not worth insuring except as an aggregate. You dont make a claim on one lost spoon, but when all of the valuables in the house were stolen. Classic cars are odd, they don't really have a replacement value that matches their emotional value, as their general market value is quite low compared to the time and effort that goes into restoration. But that time and effort isn't insurable. If my raised garden bed gets smashed by a falling branch, I'm not getting assembly time, I'm getting materials costs. Your car is similar. You had property worth $2500. It was damaged by random bad luck. Is that worth the $1k deductible? Maybe maybe not. It's no one's fault. Sometimes bad stuff happens. That's why you have insurance. I would recommend talking to a local insurance agent who can better explain to you what it makes sense for you to have coverage for. If they knew that it was a danger that they could fix, that's on them, but a healthy tree existing isn't something that's a hazard. If it was a *dead* branch over your property, that would usually be your responsibility.
im a renter but yes if i had control id have done something sooner car worth more obviously but as far as insurance goes they dont care also restoration is definitely part of value
Here's the thing you seem to keep missing: that car is not worth more actual cash money to most other people. If you tried to sell it, that's what you would probably get on the open market. Is the experience of fixing it up worth more to you? Absolutely, but that's not what anyone will pay for it.
I can show you tons of SOLD auction listings they pay for it parts and labor cost big time anyone can buy a non restored one
Then you should present that information to your insurance company that they valued it incorrectly. Odds are excellent though that they know a lot more about how much cars are actually worth than you do though. They rely on multiple different sources whose full time job is to understand automobile markets, and are probably going to know more than you. Random auction prices are not representative samples of usual sales. They are outliers. You would need to prove that your vehicle is (was) an outlier, but if it actually was, then you should have had it insured as such, but you did not. Either because it wasn't actually worth that, or you did not understand insurance, or possibly both. What your car *might* have gotten at auction *if* you'd done XYZ does not change what it was worth when the branch landed on it. If it's actually a collector, odds are excellent that the parts that survived are still worth something, often more than the value of the car as a whole, or that the car is entirely salvageable but not "worth replacing" from an insurance value point of view. Realistically, you should know that if it's actually a particularly interesting vehicle. It seems like you're missing a lot of important information about something you care about protecting. It is probably worth learning about it rather than getting defensive about things that you dont seem to understand.
Im a car sales person and a backyard mechnic who resotred the car you made so many inccorect assumptions I dont know where to start so i wont but ill say to get a special insurance policy for classic cars you need a garage which i dont have
Sunshine, you came here either whining or asking for advice, and you've recieved a lot that is remarkably consistent and all boils down to the fact that you have made a number of incorrect assumptions about how the world works. Information that you should know to be true, because you've seen the outcomes thereof. You don't seem to be inclined to learn and seem unwilling to fix your ignorance, so you have a lovely rest of your day, I'll try to help folks who want to do better.
I simply was making the point people should be better protected if a neighbor wants to own a tree no need for an essay sunshine
As a fellow car guy I'm for your loss, but you are wrong here. You are under-insured. Policies exist for classic cars, but may carry stipulations and varied cost based on many things, just like 'normal' insurance. It sounds like you sorta tired to get insured but then settled on the lesser coverage. That was your choice and, unfortunately, you are facing the consequences. It's not fair, but it's how the world works. The situation you are in is no different than if you were to get in an accident with someone without insurance, or you were at fault. As many have said, trees are an act of God so you don't have someone to directly blame. But, if you had the uninsured driver accident what do you think the outcome would be? You can try to sue the individual, if you think you can prove it was their fault. Even if you win, would that person be able to pay for the damage? How much time and energy would go into getting the value? How long would it take to get that judgment? Insurance sucks, but we get it to do the stuff listed above for us (and because in most places we legally have to have something to drive). I sympathize with the situation your are in, but it was your choice to own that car and have that coverage and park in that place. Those are all risks you took (whether you understood them fully or not).
[https://bringatrailer.com](https://bringatrailer.com) is the place for classic car auctions
YTA. Tree fell on your uninsured / underinsured car. You want to whine about it here, keep getting told that your whining is legally and morally ridiculous, and you keep arguing with everyone, repeating the same ridiculous things. So, yea, YTA. Grow up.
You had multiple options to protect your car. 1. Don't park it under a tree. 2. Put it in a garage. Or heck, even buy one of those carports with sturdy metal frames and park it in there. 3. Hire a certified arborist to properly trim the tree limbs to your property line so the tree doesn't overhang your parking space. 4. Get proper classic car insurance, which does exist. 5. Store your expensive classic car offsite where there aren't any overhanging trees. But you did not choose to do any of that. The loss of your car is not your neighbor's fault. You could have mitigated this damage in so many different ways. So be on notice. A tree or tree limbs falling from an otherwise healthy tree is the responsibility of the property owner where the debris falls. Mitigate your risk properly in the future.
God damn this should be the number one comment.
Yeah, well, I'm about 10 hours behind everyone else. LOL.
This is so ungrammatical that I’m unable to follow it. OP parked under a tree and a branch fell on their car? And the neighbour/tree owner’s insurance won’t pay out? Something about a car being “classic” but also not worth much?
insurance companies dont value classic cars like they do regular cars so its often very low unless you get an expensive policy that requires a garage but i dont have one
Perhaps you should switch to Hagerty for classic car insurance.
reminiscent judicious stupendous fact bewildered frightening unpack sink joke mindless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
UPDATE it turns out I have comprehensive on the car! just not collision
Whose insurance isn't covering? Neighbor? Yours? I'd have filed the claim against the neighbor's insurance company. They cause the loss, they pay the boss.
This is incorrect. Barring specific circumstances and actions, it’s OP’s responsibility, not the neighbor’s. Most regulars on treelaw know this.
apparently not and i agree with you but allot of people came out with the pitch forks to roast me cuz the law says my auto insuance is supposed to cover it dosent seem fair i have to make a claim for someone elses tree
My take is that I have every right to be made whole for a covered loss. I wouldn't even look at my insurance for this. Not my tree, not my deductible. Pay me.
apparently you and i are the crazy ones for thinking this way makes no sense id have to make a claim and possibly increases my premiums
It all depends on how your state defines an insurable loss. A neighbor's tree falls on my car, I'm filing a claim against his insurance. Seems straightforward to me.
But that's not how it works in most places. The tree owners insurance is just going to reply with, "yeah, that's an act of God not covered by this policy, bye" OP is conflating ownership and responsibility for the damage... It's no different (legally and to insurance companies) then the car getting destroyed by a lightning strike. They just have a target since they can point and say, "that's your tree"
unfortunately in most places its the responsibility of the owner of the property that was damaged as its "an act of nature" but nature didnt force my neighbor to have a tree