Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Neighbor's Tree Falls On Your House - You Pay?!" video.

@wesjohnson3035 They should be thankful. Dandelions are a blessing. They break up the soil and add calcium to it. Plus, they make for a pretty decent salad green. If it's enough dandelions to be an issue, then perhaps run an aerator through the lawn and add a bit of calcium while that's being done.
8
It's like that around here too. Unless there's something going on to cause specific liability, it's an act of god and everybody's own insurance pays.We had a rather significant maple tree growing right on the fence line, although I guess slightly more on the neighbor's side, that was sick and could have potentially fallen down. It was eventually removed when efforts to preserve it failed, but it would have more or less taken out an entire house if it had fallen down. This is one of the reasons to know what your insurance covers and what the legal status of things like this is. Falling trees is probably not very unusual in parts of the country with significant trees.
7
Your state doesn't have a tailgating law? Around here the driver that rear ends is responsible in pretty much all cases, unless the attorneys can prove that the tailgating law doesn't apply. It's mean to ensure that drivers leave enough roof ahead of them to stop if the lead car needs to stop suddenly. I'd probably also have filed a complaint with the insurance commissioner as the insurance company should know that.
3
@MmeHyraelle Not really, in this case, it would have just shifted the responsibility amongst insurers if she had had insurance. Which is what happened here, except that since the woman didn't have insurance, she was on the hook for the repair bills. The same basic thing could have happened in reverse where she had insurance, but the neighbor didn't and the neighbor might have been on the hook if that was how the law was written. By assigning it to the party that is injured by the act of god, it streamlines a whole bunch of things as now the party that has the insurance is the party dealing with their own insurance company, which somewhat reduces the conflict of interest as the insurance company does still need to consider keeping their customer after the damage has been done. That tree isn't going to fall a second time, so losing a customer over that makes little sense.
2
I think the reason why the laws are often like that is that it makes the headaches of insurance companies fighting over responsibility a lot faster. I doubt there's much affect in aggregate on various insurance companies as one incident might go to one of the two companies and the next might swing the other way around.
2
That might have been legal. Some areas allow for limbs like that to be removed by the neighbor.
1
It's like that in many other states though and it's not absurd. It means that since nobody caused the tree to fall, that all the coordination just needs to be done between the injured party and their own insurance company. It greatly reduces the conflict of interest as once a tree has fallen, it won't typically fall again. So there's less of an incentive to screw the customer over than if it was the neighbor's insurance. It also means a lot less time spent coordinating between 3rd parties.
1
@jasonpopielarczyk7511 That would be a snag, and they can potentially stand for many years before they become rotten enough to be unsafe. This is the case with things like those pines being killed by beetles out west, but they can also be killed by a more gradual rotting from the inside, like in the case where there's water that's able to collect in a hollow near the top of the tree. But, if in doubt, ti's not a bad idea to have a certified arborist come over and take a look. It's likely to be a free part of quote process anyways.
1