Tree Company Drops Tree on House, what Should I Do?

It's easy to tell if the branch did more severe damage.
Climb up into the attic and look. See if the rafters in that area look different (more cracked and split) than in other areas.

A good roofer will do this for you.

At this point, you are trying to make a problem where one probably doesn't exist, but like I said earlier in this thread, the roofer who does the repair will gladly inspect the roof for you and look for other damage. If its caused by this incident, he will work with the adjuster to get it taken care of.

At some point, you have to trust the process just a bit.

Dan
 
Jesse,

You're losing me man. Crawl up in the crawlspace and visually inspect your truss system where the branch hit. If you SEE damage there you go and now you know. Get up on your roof and walk around on it a bit. Jump up and down in several spots. Jump on the damaged area. If you fall through, there you go.

Plywood is an incredible engineered piece of wood. layers of wood and glue, pressured into a pretty strong surface. It's telling that your damage is on the outside edge where weather has gotten to the edge. truss systems are also a wonder to see. Most places there are truss only companies where that is all they do.

I understand your worries, but honestly had you ever built with wood you'd worry less about this. Go inspect yourself and stop the what if.
 
I know I said I was done here, but here I am again. I like to have a couple of cups of coffee in me before I start processing my adjusters reports from the day before, so here I am, drinking coffee and shaking my head once again.


We were not home to see it fall, for all we know, it landed higher on the roof, rolled/ slid down, and did the damage shown in the pics, or it may have just brushed the roof ( appears this way) but again, we didn't see it, so why we should take that risk.
If a 10-15' limb fell 20' and struck your roof anywhere, there would be obvious areas of damage consistent with the impact. If said branch impacted and slid down, and if, as you are implying, the slide alone had sufficient weight and force to cause the broken sheathing and torn shingles in your photos, there would be a very obvious area of damage where the limb actually fell and impacted your roof. In response to your "why should we take that risk?", I ask, "why do you think the insurance carrier should pay for an unproven and extraordinarily unlikely hypothetical?".

As mentioned by someone earlier, where I live, the roof takes hundreds of pounds of snow every year, how do we know this impact didn't weaked that piece enough to cause it to break this winter? WE DONT.
It is your duty as a claimant to present the facts surrounding your loss to the insurance carrier that you think is liable for the damages. The key word you probably read right past is "facts". Not ideas, not theories, not hypotheticals, not worries, not "what if's". Facts. Facts are what insurance companies pay for. In this case, the damages are pretty straightforward and the facts of loss are easily established.

They are not going to disassemble your entire home to determine if a "maybe" scenario occurred or if additional damages may have occurred. That said, as I have explained to countless insured and claimants, if you choose to dismantle your home on your own nickel and you do discover additional damages that are a proven direct result of the loss, the carrier should be good for the costs of accessing the damages and repairing the damages. If you disassemble your home and discover no peril related damages, the costs of doing so remain your own personal burden. Keep in mind that if you expose hidden peril related damages in one area and not in another, the carrier will not pay for anything beyond accessing the damages that they are directly responsible for. They do not pay for snipe hunts.

I'm not trying to argue with you all, I'm simply stating my point of view for the situation and reaction to what is being said. I suppose technically they are arguments, but at the same time, they are very valid.
You are indeed trying to argue. When someone tells you something you do not wish to hear, you argue. As far as validity goes, after you are told "carriers do not pay for 'what if's'", and you continue to speak of recovering additional costs of repair for "what if" scenarios, well let's just say that it runs contrary to the definition of "valid". Again, we are talking about the facts of loss here, not about theories and hypotheticals. If you wish to be taken seriously, now that that concept has been clearly explained to you several times, embrace it and keep it in mind when asking questions and demanding results. When you understand and apply the concept of "facts of loss" as I have described, you should have a reasonable expectation of the results, and you will have a much easier time dealing with all parties to the loss, be it the arborist, insurance carrier or repair contractor. You would be surprised at how quickly things get resolved when people deal strictly in facts.

Once again I never expected an entire new roof until the roofer said that that is what insurance pays for in situations like this.
And you were told by several people that the roofer does not speak for the insurance company, and that given the facts that you have presented here, your roofer is likely giving you incorrect information. Best thing you can do here is let the adjuster or insurance carrier speak for themselves instead of going along with someone who has already proven that they are willing to act as though they speak with authority that they do not possess (and saying "the insurance company will pay for..." when they have no apparent access to the insurance company checkbook is indeed presuming authority that is not possessed).

I also understand that many of you are or were adjusters and that this is what you dealt with a lot. At this point, I'm trying to find out what you all would think to how I view the situation.
Just for clarity and to establish some bona-fides: As far as I know, I am the only active adjuster posting in this thread. I am an executive level adjuster, who employs hundreds of adjusters around the nation on behalf of a fair number of insurance carriers ranging from Coastal Wind & Hail plans to global large commercial carriers. This is an Agent forum, and I maintain a presence here to keep my ear to the ground and develop the occasional business relationship.

Most of the agents posting in this thread have given opinions similar to those that I have presented, and the general consensus is:
You are being unreasonable and overstating the repairs required to bring you back to whole, or to "make it as it was".

I do have another question though, because the roof had 2 layers of shingles now, durning the repair, how is that replaced, would they put 2 layers of new shingles or leave it as one? I would think they would have to do 2 to keep it level and everything, is that correct?
Damages are typically written "as it was". While a roofer, adjuster or insurance carrier would not see the sense in placing 2 layers on a patch, you can argue for it, since it was there in the first place and they will probably give it to you if asked. It is not the "right" way to fix it, and frankly "keeping it level" is kind of a funny argument, since I can see the long term warping of the sheathing (where the decking sags between the rafters) just in the limited photos you have provided, but you can argue for the 2nd layer, and they will probably include it.

That said, since we are talking about such a small area, you are likely looking at a "minimum charge" anyway, as if they wrote the few square feet of shingle, felt and sheathing that was actually damaged, (just based on the photos you provided, I could be wrong without actually laying my own two eyes on it) the value would be low enough that they would write a "minimum charge" instead, to ensure that enough value was applied to the damages to actually get someone to do the job, so you probably would not even see the few extra shingles for the 2nd layer in the estimate anyway.

An example would be if they went with a "per shingle" charge and a piece of plywood, (which as I said earlier, would be cut to fit the damaged area) based on your photos, you would have less than $100 in labor and materials for the roof portion of your loss, along with about $3-4/LF for your damaged fascia and $5-6/LF for your damaged section of gutter. If they just paid for the actual damages, you likely would not get anyone to do the job, as it simply would not be enough, so they have "minimum charges" that add a little money in for trip fees and such.

You probably will not even end up dealing with the insurance company, unless you do not heed the advice granted in this thread, as the value of the damages is low enough that the arborist will probably just handle it out of pocket rather than risk increased premiums for such a small loss. That said, if you push for the unreasonable, they will probably let their carrier get involved so that a professional can tell you what you have been told countless times in this thread already.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so we got a "repair" quote only for the damaged area, it does not include sheathing, it is only 1 layer shingles, fascia board, gutter, wooden drip edge, and obviously labor, which came to $850. I believe we will request the second layer, and we have yet to view the sheathing.
 
Ok, so we got a "repair" quote only for the damaged area, it does not include sheathing, it is only 1 layer shingles, fascia board, gutter, wooden drip edge, and obviously labor, which came to $850. I believe we will request the second layer, and we have yet to view the sheathing.
So a couple of minimum repair charges from the adjuster's point of view.

Got another quote today for the patch.... 1650, and that caver the same as the previous quote

Did you ask them what was different about what they were doing vs the one that quoted the same job for 50% of the cost?
 
So a couple of minimum repair charges from the adjuster's point of view.



Did you ask them what was different about what they were doing vs the one that quoted the same job for 50% of the cost?

It appears to be the same work. Although the higher priced company is using a lower quality roofing shingle... Go figure :nah::mad::twitchy: the 850 is from the best roofer around, so we are just gunna go with it. The tree company agreed to finish the job with a 15% discount, fix the roof, and even do a little extra pruning, stump grinding, and take an extra tree that they ended up finding out has a huge rotted knot about 25-30 feet up that we never saw before hand. It's no new roof, but well take it I guess.... Sorry about all the arguing and talk of suing, obviously I've had a lot going on, plus a lot of other problems. Not gunna cry about them here, but that's just how I get when I'm pissed off, i almost became a lawyer instead of an engineer, so that part of me still exists:laugh::laugh:
Thanks for all your help guys

----------

It wasn't an adjuster, it was the roofing company... Just wanted to make that clear. We didn't involve any insurance, the company is going to be responsible for any underlying damage as well, as it should be. We are also going to make his sign a document effectively saying that we are allowing the patch, but should a leak occur within the next 5 years in that area we reserve the right to come back to him for the damages. (From what we found, roofers will not warranty patches) so we just want to cover our ass should anything happen
 
you should hire better tree removing company, having good experience in that. ha ha

Accidents happen with the best of companies and service providers. That is just a part of being in business. You just try to minimize this type of thing. Have you ever seen a bolt break on a new piece of equipment resulting in over $5,000 worth of damage? I have. No one was at fault other than the manufacturer but the business had to pay for the damage. The manufacturer did nothing and the dollar amount made it not worth a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top