Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Legally, you're not at fault, but ethically, OP, you have a problem. Clearly you don't take care of your trees!!! You're a very bad neighbor. I'd be furious too.
If I'm the neighbor, I try my luck in small claims court arguing negligence and actual knowledge based the prior tree and the condition of the trees
And you’ll lose. It’s well established.
Good luck trying to prove poor condition of a tree that’s already down. In the future, neighbor can put OP on notice of the trees condition and then will stand a chance of collecting.
Furthermore, neighbor declined OPs offer to help remove the tree. There is no damage and if neighbor decides to file a claim for a downed tree with a $2800 deductible, well then neighbor makes poor choices regarding insurance.
... but that's not how any of that works
There is a valid claim and there's actual damages
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Legally, you're not at fault, but ethically, OP, you have a problem. Clearly you don't take care of your trees!!! You're a very bad neighbor. I'd be furious too.
If I'm the neighbor, I try my luck in small claims court arguing negligence and actual knowledge based the prior tree and the condition of the trees
And you’ll lose. It’s well established.
Good luck trying to prove poor condition of a tree that’s already down. In the future, neighbor can put OP on notice of the trees condition and then will stand a chance of collecting.
Furthermore, neighbor declined OPs offer to help remove the tree. There is no damage and if neighbor decides to file a claim for a downed tree with a $2800 deductible, well then neighbor makes poor choices regarding insurance.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Legally, you're not at fault, but ethically, OP, you have a problem. Clearly you don't take care of your trees!!! You're a very bad neighbor. I'd be furious too.
If I'm the neighbor, I try my luck in small claims court arguing negligence and actual knowledge based the prior tree and the condition of the trees
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you take care of your trees?
No he doesn't they wouldn't be falling on this neighbors property if he did. Once is a accident, twice is negligence and if I were his neighbors I would sue the second time this happened.
OP you are a real piece of work!
Anonymous wrote:Do you take care of your trees?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:legally you owe him nothing but if i were him, i would be pissed too. manage your trees OP. that you should do.
+1
Legally you're not on the hook so far but twice in two years is a bit much.
If I were the neighbor I'd threaten to sue you for negligence since the previous tree falling should have tipped you off. And of you don't pay, I'd take you to court.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fair offer. You are not responsible. His risk was paying less - so deductibles higher. He went with the wrong odds.
This is the answer. His deductible is high because his monthly payments are low.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:legally you owe him nothing but if i were him, i would be pissed too. manage your trees OP. that you should do.
Did you read OP? There was a bad storm. Nowhere does it sound like her/his trees aren’t “managed.”
OP did manage their trees. This is the second tree in two years that fell. That's actual knowledge of a dangerous problem on their property
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:legally you owe him nothing but if i were him, i would be pissed too. manage your trees OP. that you should do.
Did you read OP? There was a bad storm. Nowhere does it sound like her/his trees aren’t “managed.”