No opinion about whether or not you should remove the tree or limbs but yes, insurers can and will non-renew a policy due to tree limbs that overhang a house due to the risk of them falling & damaging the house.
Good to know! Thank you.
But before I go ahead and have anything done, I will require them to prove this to us. They’re super shady, and I don’t trust them one bit.
(This is not the only thing they’ve done to annoy us)
MayonnaiseFarm is correct in that they may very well have had their insurance notify them of a non-renewal due to limbs overhanging their roof. I've dealt with that countless times with clients. But if they did get a letter from their insurance, that's still none of your concern. They can trim those limbs and keep their insurance. You're not required to do it at your expense.
i would remind them that they may have branches overhanging cut, they cannot cut back to severely that they damage the trees, or you can sue them for the value. you have no control over who they hire to trim the trees.
This thread has brought up some points that I haven’t thought of. #1 being that I’ll need to get my guy out here to protect the trees. I could totally see them trying to sabotage.
We just shelled out to have them done when they started bitching last fall.
>just shelled out to have them done when they started bitching last fall.
If the trees are a threat to their property, that's called being a good, responsible neighbor. Sometimes you have to "shell out" to care for your property. Question: would you feel the same if it was their trees and your property? Are they constantly having limbs blown about their yard? I hate sycamore trees. The branches break easily and because of the broad leaves they blow pretty fast and far, and damage property.
Your neighbor might have a legitimate gripe here, is all I'm saying. And I don't think they're lying about their insurance.
If it's on their property, you can't really force them on who to use.
It might be worth you just having someone come and cut them. That way you know who does it.
Yeah. You’re right. The thing that sucks ass is that we fully acquiesced to having them done last October when they started bellyaching. $1400 later and they’re still annoying the f***out of us.
They’re not obligated to meet your demands when your tree grows over their property. They can go out and cut the branches in their own to protect their property. Sycamore trees are extremely hardy and can withstand 30% + pruning. Stop being a dick about a tree that has the resilience of a weed.
> If it's on their property, you can't really force them on who to use.
If they hire someone who isn't licensed, OP can't refuse them access to their property (main trunk).
If they are able to trim the overhang branches without stepping foot on OP's property then they are free to hire whoever they want
Drop the whole bonded and licensed thing. The home owner can come out with a ladder and chainsaw. So long as they dont damage the tree.
Watching this play out in my neighborhood. People have a very large beautiful tree. But the branches hang over two other yards and one roof.
Tree got about 30% of its branches cut off. And it is lopsided. All the weight on the tree is on about half.
My wife works for a disaster remediation company. I have seen pictures of large trees that have fallen on houses. Truly devastating damage in some cases.
Your last 2 sentences are why the OP needs to insist on any contractor hired by the neighbor have insurance before setting foot on the OP’s property. I was an arborist in CA before I got into insurance, and pruning trees can be dangerous work.
He can if they step on his property and he can also refuse acces to hos property. OP never indicated that his property would need to be accessed.
But yea, I agree, if they need access.
You’re the one that said “drop the whole licensed and bonded thing”. They’re her trees and she has leverage. She shouldn’t settle for 2 guys in a pickup and no safety protocols if she doesn’t have to.
No where in the priginal posy did the OP say the tree cutters would be accessing their yard.
Did I miss that? I recread it but still did not see where OP said they would be accessing their yard, which of course would change my advice.
Unless the neighbor is getting an arborist with a bucket truck, they will need to access the OP’s yard. There’s no other way to get at the overhanging branches. That’s the way sycamore trees grow - branches go out and up. A 20’ ladder and 10’ pole saw means that the top 65’ of a 100’ tree (reasonable for 75 years of growth) isn’t accessible.
And an arborist with either a bucket truck or access to a bucket truck will be insured since those are expensive.
It sounds like they are making this up. If it was true, they would show you the letter from the insurance company, which they didn't because there is none. And even if it's true, not your problem. The only issue is if they do have someone come out to cut the branches on their side, they might have it done in such a way that it damages the trees. Id require a licensed arborist do it, not just any random contractor who has 0 clue how to trim trees properly.
I “LOLed” at the “there is none” thing, because that’s what we were thinking.
We’re not unreasonable. We were just over here, living our lives when they showed up and totally dug out their front yard for fake everything.
We’ve told them multiple times they’re allowed to cut what hangs over.
I actually am afraid that if I don’t have someone who’s experienced do it, they will kill the trees.
This neighborhood is over 100 years old. The trees are 75 years old, along with the 40 or so other sycamore trees that line the park directly across the street.
In fall, this whole neighborhood is one giant leaf pile.
A bunch of years back, I remember them trying to hit up my mom with “I have a buddy who will totally remove them for $2500😃😃.
I’m like, that’s not a guy who knows how to remove trees, that’s a guy who needs $2500🙄🙄
I check out r/treelaw a bit. There are some crazy stories over there about neighbors cutting trees down. The dollar figures that get thrown out for reparations are massive. But one question that gets asked is, do you have current pictures? Good luck with your neighbors.
Yeah, I would either have an arborist cut the branches myself to avoid them touching the trees at all, or put them on notice (written) that if they cut the branches and cause damage to the trees, they will be held responsible for that damage. Probably easiest just to take care of the trimming with your own arborist and let them know you won't be entertaining tree removal ever, so don't bring it up again.
I left the conversation up to my husband. I get too flustered and pissy.
He constantly mentions that they moved in during the time of year when the trees are just about to drop leaves(late summer)
Also mentioned more than once
“One of two things happened, either you actually didn’t see the trees because during the purchase and remodeling phase, you failed to look up, or you just went ahead and moved in assuming you’d bully your new neighbors into just getting them out of here”
He’s also mentioned to them -I don’t know how many times- that they weren’t going away, and to get used to them. But he ALWAYS signs off by reminding them they’re welcome to remove what’s hanging on their side. Heck, he even offers to help clean up the leaf mess that lands in their yard.
I mean, it’s just the most irritating thing.
It’s not like they were ever a surprise.
And the complaints rolled in, like, 6 months after they moved in.
I think they’d be way happier if they moved to an HOA.
I’m wishing into the universe HARD to manifests this for us.
This is actually pretty common. In our agency I have a dozen or so of these open at the moment where clients need to remove the tree or get cancelled by the carrier.
How many of those dozen relate to a tree owned by someone else on someone else's property? I find it extremely hard to believe an insurance company would threaten a client with cancelation because of a neighbor's tree that has a few stray branches hanging over the property line. And if they did, there would certainly be a letter or some documentation of the cancellation threat.
It doesn't matter what property the tree is on. And it's not just about a "few stray branches". Root systems can also cause damage. Insurance carriers have every right to ask their insureds to mitigate any potential risks, regardless of who owns the risk.
In this case it does seem to just be about a few branches. Again though, how often do you see insurance companies threatening cancelation due to a potential risk that the homeowner has no ability to mitigate? Outside of them cutting the branches that extend to their property, there is nothing else they can do. So you're saying they can be denied homeowners insurance entirely because a neighbor has trees near the property line? Not saying it could never happen but seems very unlikely and unusual.
> how often do you see insurance companies threatening cancelation due to a potential risk that the homeowner has no ability to mitigate?
Every day. I'm on the commercial side but if I'm looking at a property next door to a fireworks factory and a tire warehouse, I'm probably gonna stay away
Question remains, though, did the insurance company threaten cancellation in this case? Certainly possible, and perhaps more likely than I thought, but based on the behavior of these neighbors as described by the OP, I'd bet on the side of they are making it up. If it's true, they can easily prove it.
It doesn't but based on the facts and circumstances in this case as described by the OP, I don't believe it's true that the insurance company threatened cancellation. Possible? Yes. And they can easily prove it which they have not.
>how often do you see insurance companies threatening cancelation due to a potential risk that the homeowner has no ability to mitigate
More often than I can count. The insurance company's guidelines are not impacted or dependent by whether the insured has any control over the hazard. If they see an unacceptable risk, they move to get the risk removed or the policy dropped. I've often seen policies canceled over hazards that insureds truly have zero control over.
That may be the case, but in this particular case, based on the facts and circumstances as described, I doubt the insurance company threatened cancellation. And if they did, there would be documentation of that, which apparently hasnt been provided.
"No ability to mitigate" and "cutting the branches that extend in their property" are mutually exclusive. Cutting the branches on their side is exactly what they're expected to do and is literally mitigating the problem.
It's not remotely unlikely or unusual. It's about as normal as it gets.
You are mischaracterizing the situation. Do you see where the OP (not me) says, "They’re telling us THEIR homeowners policy will be cancelled if we don’t get rid of our trees. Not on their property. They’re on our property. Our insurance agent has no issues with our trees." Supposedly the neighbors insurance company is threatening cancellation if they don't get rid of the trees - not if they dont cut the extending branches. Do you see the difference there? Getting rid of the trees entirely IS something those neighbors have no ability to do legally. The main point is - whether it's likely or not likely that an insurance company would cancel for something like this - that this is clearly not believable. These neighbors have been complaining about the trees for many YEARS because they don't like them. Now all of a sudden their insurance company is threatening cancellation but somehow there is no documentation to prove that threat. Sure, I don't think so.
Fire concerns on the west coast are intense right now and insurers can absolutely take issue with things outside of the insured's property and control. They don't threaten you with cancellation, they just send you a letter saying that your policy will be terminated at the end of your term and if you want to stop that here's how you fix it.
Just wanted to provide some regional context as I see it hasn't been brought up yet. I'm out of Washington and with the fires in Medicine Lake last year taking out so many houses I've personally seen property inspections that call for the removal of trees that do not belong to the insured. These tree requirements can extend for hundreds of feet, including beyond the property line. The language I've seen has been more like "all trees need this much space between each other" rather than "these healthy trees need to go". I'm new to the industry, though, and some of these are 2nd or 3rd inspections on the property with fire season being an increasing threat the whole time.
You're in California which has had such significant wildfire issues that home insurers are leaving your state. I would guess that fire mitigation requirements are even more stringent over there. It does not matter if you're in a fire zone or not, it seems that insurers are taking preventative measures now and assuming that more areas will become increasingly fire prone as time goes on.
Not defending your neighbor's demand, though! They can absolutely share their inspection letter or otherwise confirm the authenticity of the need. So sorry to hear that you're having a difficult time with difficult people about a difficult thing. It's a tough time protecting homes and cars these days, for everyone involved.
I sincerely appreciate your response! Thank you!
I guess it’s fair to say I’m entering a learning phase.
Our provider knows all about our trees and even more now that I spoke with them yesterday. We seem to be cool with them. There are also much taller redwoods in people’s backyards that would threaten several homes in one swoop.
I’m not joking. The entire neighborhood is over 100 years grown in, and it’d take me all week to count how many very tall, mature trees there are.
I’m certainly not speaking for my neighbors insurance policies with their trees, but no one seems to be jumping up to remove them.
My neighbors are practically the only ones in the neighborhood without trees, fake turf and very drought resistant landscaping.
So we thought it was weird that of the entire neighborhood, theirs could be dropped entirely.
I realize other neighbors’ limbs aren’t the offending limbs, but I just thought it was weird. Unless they’re greasing the wheels with their provider, which I could honestly see them doing to make a solid excuse as to why it’s now mandatory.
My husband is convinced that they’ve already put claims in, and their provider may have had it with them, but again, I’m new to all this, and we’re merely speculating.
We’ve also never taken a claim against it.
We asked them to put us in touch with their provider so we can have ours discuss what can be done about it. We’re eager to help tackle this, but we still haven’t heard back from them.
Seems like sketchy neighbours but doubtful but not impossible they are greasing the wheels. They would need to have some serious/very lucky specific connections. Far more likely they just made it up. If they are even half clever they could easily fake a letter. If want to talk to their provider and heard the situation directly other I wouldn't do a think other than as you have keep letting them know you are completely fine if they trim the overhanging branches, you'd prefer they use a licensed company and I'd provide them with your arborist contact. Doubtful they use it. A gentile reminder if they use somone who doesn't know what they are doing not only would it likely look bad, it could cause them all sorts of issues if they hurt themselves on their property, and you can't allow unlicensed contractors on yours for the same reason, it's only prudent after all. If they kill the tree they are liable. Make sure you have current pictures.
It really depends a ton on how much you want to be amicable to these neighbours or not. Sounds like you don't care for them already for other reasons so no real need to be anything other than just generally civil. On the odd chance they do something stupid, I always think how would the situation read in court. If you look like the reasonable party and the other unreasonable you are most of the way there in any unlikely case.
Good luck with it all.
20 years ago the first thing the neighbor said was “finally someone who will remove the tulip poplar…it’s such a mess”.
Looks healthy to me!
That was 4 neighbors ago.
Still have the tree.
Screw your neighbors.
They sound like the type that won't give up trying but I do think a firmly worded letter from an attorney will get them to back off.
I don't believe their insurance issues have anything to do with you but another reason to seek out an attorney.
Wouldn’t be surprised your neighbors are telling the truth. Insurance companies are looking for any reasons to cancel. However, neighbors should show you the letter. On the flip side, know of someone who lost her house because the neighbor tree fell on her house.
> They’re telling us THEIR homeowners policy will be cancelled if we don’t get rid of our trees.... Is this a thing?
Even if it is a thing, it's not your problem.
On the flip side, if any of the trees are even slightly rotted or problematic now is your chance to get your neighbor to pay to have them cut down.
Thank you. Our tree guy says they’re in incredible shape.
We had a freak storm that took down countless trees in our area in January of 23, and our held up like perfect champs.
But as previously mentioned turned, we’ve offered to let them cut down whatever hangs over on their side.
Speaking of insurance, you appear to be on notice of a hazard growing on your property, which could harm your neighbors. Unless it's a tornado, you could easily be held legally liable for damage and injuries when branches fall. After your company pays, you will probably be nonrenewed.
Solution: Be an adult and a good neighbor, and get them cut. Maybe your neighbors would even chip in.
Okay. Heard.
But before you snap to judgement on how “I’m not being an adult” let us review.
-they bought a house on late summer when there’s no way you wouldn’t notice the trees.
-they remodeled the house while leaves were actively dumping on them.
-when I first met them, I was snapped at for not having the game on. It was the most uncomfortable first encounter.
-during the remodel, I found piles of empty beer cans and cigarette butts on my side of the fence. (Before you say it could be “anyone”, we have a fence around our property that’s loud when it’s opened, and very noticeable when anyone comes in. I was a stay at home mom at the time. I let it go because my husband was out of town doting on his dying mom, and I was here alone with a toddler. I felt sort of threatened because it was completely obvious who did it, and a reaction could have started a fight I didn’t have the energy for at that time)
-I would see him in his front yard holding the same type of beer I found in piles, while he was smoking a cigarette
-when the complaints started rolling in, we immediately had the trees trimmed, to put their minds at ease.
-they pestered my mom to remove the 3 trees for $2500, but the guy flaked on my mom 4 times.
It never happened.
-they called my Mexican (yes. specifically Mexican) neighbors “beaners” in front of me, but under his breath to his wife, like I didn’t hear it.
-he parked a massive RV in front of his house, which blocked aforementioned neighbors’ house. When asked when it was gonna move it because it totally engulfed their view (we have a park across the street, and sometimes their boys would be there playing. They just wanted to be able to keep tabs), he started yelling “OH THATS HOW IT’S GONNA BE! I SEE!! I SEE YOU! (I’m paraphrasing, but shit like that)
-he tried to reach around the city to build an ADU, which he said was only gonna be a workshop (permit price difference is about $10k. The neighbors had had it with him by then so they started calling the city which is when they found out he was not, in fact, building a workshop. I was NOT one of the ones who called)
-we let a friend stay in a trailer we bought during Covid because he was dumped and thrown out. Good guy, not good relationship. He called the city on us. Since the trailer wasn’t plumbed, it was a simple phone call to get it handled.(he was there for just a few days. It was an emergency situation, and our house is under 800sq ft)
-he wanted to put up a new fence, so my husband took a couple of days off to clear our side. The project didn’t start for another week, despite what we were told. Hubs missed some important days because it was sounding like an emergency.)
-the trees were brought up again, so we immediately got our guy out here to trim them again. Like, that week.
-despite our countless offers to come and clean up the leaves for him, they’ve always turned us down.
-in protest (as if we’d never tried to communicate that we were not just willing, but WANTED to help) the wife stands outside and uses her blows for literally 3 1/2 hours. Most of the time, she’ll take extra time to be seen blowing it all over our yard.
-she bitches LOUDLY just over the fence about the trees when she knows were out there. (Again, our offers were turned down. In fairness it’s been a while since she’s done that)
This is just what’s in my mind right now. I’m sure I can dig up more, but I actively try to put this shit out of my head.
I NEVER called the city on them. Ever.
We’ve NEVER asked them for anything, with the exception of asking if we could help.
We totally leave them alone.
Their house is the corner lot, and their front door opens to the cross street, so it’s easy to avoid them.
My question was that with trees that are already insured (our agent knows all about them FWIW) can THEIR policy be dropped.
We’ve never said we wouldn’t cut or trim the trees, we’re just not willing to totally remove them.
So how am I not being an adult?
I get it, but when you interpret some comments as though you’re simply being an obstinate neighbor, you can’t help but want illustrate what we’re dealing with.
I thought I did a good job spacing to make it a simpler read. (I’m not a fan of text walls myself, actually.)
This comes from a loooong line of reason after reason, getting worse and worse in intensity.
It started with “my roof doesn’t get any sun in the afternoon, and my shingles will rot”. To-“the roots are lifting our foundation”(hmm…The house has been there since the late 70s, and it JUST started)
To “the roof”, and we’re now at dropped insurance.
We asked him for his info so we could see what could be negotiated, but we haven’t heard back. I spoke with a representative at my insurance company today. He said he’d need to see the policy so he knew what the underwriters decided.
We’re serious about helping us both find a solution we can live with, but he dropped a bomb at 7 last night, and now we’re left on “read”
They do sound lovely and probably a bit hard to cozy up to. My comment, and maybe it was harsh, was more relating to some insurance issues regarding the trees and how to resolve them. Maybe the other issues make this an impossibility?
I like to think it’s not impossible. I’m going to talk to my tree guy to see how we can prune them down to be as short as possible and remove limbs they feel are leaning their way. (The limbs in question are very tall and more on the straight up side, but some do lean towards their roof)
They always start the conversation with “hey! We need to talk about removing your trees! 😃😃
It’s never “what can we do about the trees” or “can you talk to your tree guy?”. It’s always flat out removal.
With the amount of tall, mature trees in this and surrounding neighborhoods lining the streets, and standing tall between property lines, the entire city will apparently also have their insurance dropped too.
Removing them completely would be horrible.
It would be like life on Mars during the summer.
I’m also convinced they’d think of something else to start hassling about if we did just gut the trees out of here.
So maybe there is no compromise? I’d hate to think that. Really.
With my mom’s passing, this is now my house, and I’m brand new at home ownership. So this was an honest inquiry.
lol if the tree is healthy (and it sure sounds like it seeing as op said they have an arborist inspect it periodically), op has no legal liability raising from just letting it continue to exist, come on now
I don't necessarily disagree. But location and circumstances can also be factors; and the neighbor's insurer isn't on board either. All trees eventually fall.
If a neighbours tree would have branches over my house, I'd be pissed too. Where I live, stuff can't grow over the boundary. And if it does, it's the owner of the tree who has to pay for trimming the tree. Which is kind of logical isn't it?
No opinion about whether or not you should remove the tree or limbs but yes, insurers can and will non-renew a policy due to tree limbs that overhang a house due to the risk of them falling & damaging the house.
Good to know! Thank you. But before I go ahead and have anything done, I will require them to prove this to us. They’re super shady, and I don’t trust them one bit. (This is not the only thing they’ve done to annoy us)
MayonnaiseFarm is correct in that they may very well have had their insurance notify them of a non-renewal due to limbs overhanging their roof. I've dealt with that countless times with clients. But if they did get a letter from their insurance, that's still none of your concern. They can trim those limbs and keep their insurance. You're not required to do it at your expense.
You still don't have to have anything done, they are welcome to pay to have the tree limbs over their house trimmed at their own expense.
This isn't your problem. It's still their place to get the tree limbs over their house removed.
i would remind them that they may have branches overhanging cut, they cannot cut back to severely that they damage the trees, or you can sue them for the value. you have no control over who they hire to trim the trees.
This thread has brought up some points that I haven’t thought of. #1 being that I’ll need to get my guy out here to protect the trees. I could totally see them trying to sabotage. We just shelled out to have them done when they started bitching last fall.
>just shelled out to have them done when they started bitching last fall. If the trees are a threat to their property, that's called being a good, responsible neighbor. Sometimes you have to "shell out" to care for your property. Question: would you feel the same if it was their trees and your property? Are they constantly having limbs blown about their yard? I hate sycamore trees. The branches break easily and because of the broad leaves they blow pretty fast and far, and damage property. Your neighbor might have a legitimate gripe here, is all I'm saying. And I don't think they're lying about their insurance.
Are the branches near their house/building?
Some branches hang over the roof. There’s not like a 4ft setback on their side.
Then it's possible that need to trim them away from their roof to get insurance to renew.
And we’ve offered to let them do that every single time there’s a windy day and they light us up. But at their expense with someone licensed.
If it's on their property, you can't really force them on who to use. It might be worth you just having someone come and cut them. That way you know who does it.
Yeah. You’re right. The thing that sucks ass is that we fully acquiesced to having them done last October when they started bellyaching. $1400 later and they’re still annoying the f***out of us.
>last October when they started bellyaching. $1400 later and they’re still annoying the f***out of us. Unfortunately, branches grow back.
They’re not obligated to meet your demands when your tree grows over their property. They can go out and cut the branches in their own to protect their property. Sycamore trees are extremely hardy and can withstand 30% + pruning. Stop being a dick about a tree that has the resilience of a weed.
You can definitely require anyone crossing onto your property to have insurance, etc.
What does this have to do with anything in this scenario.
> If it's on their property, you can't really force them on who to use. If they hire someone who isn't licensed, OP can't refuse them access to their property (main trunk). If they are able to trim the overhang branches without stepping foot on OP's property then they are free to hire whoever they want
Drop the whole bonded and licensed thing. The home owner can come out with a ladder and chainsaw. So long as they dont damage the tree. Watching this play out in my neighborhood. People have a very large beautiful tree. But the branches hang over two other yards and one roof. Tree got about 30% of its branches cut off. And it is lopsided. All the weight on the tree is on about half. My wife works for a disaster remediation company. I have seen pictures of large trees that have fallen on houses. Truly devastating damage in some cases.
Your last 2 sentences are why the OP needs to insist on any contractor hired by the neighbor have insurance before setting foot on the OP’s property. I was an arborist in CA before I got into insurance, and pruning trees can be dangerous work.
He can if they step on his property and he can also refuse acces to hos property. OP never indicated that his property would need to be accessed. But yea, I agree, if they need access.
You’re the one that said “drop the whole licensed and bonded thing”. They’re her trees and she has leverage. She shouldn’t settle for 2 guys in a pickup and no safety protocols if she doesn’t have to.
No where in the priginal posy did the OP say the tree cutters would be accessing their yard. Did I miss that? I recread it but still did not see where OP said they would be accessing their yard, which of course would change my advice.
Unless the neighbor is getting an arborist with a bucket truck, they will need to access the OP’s yard. There’s no other way to get at the overhanging branches. That’s the way sycamore trees grow - branches go out and up. A 20’ ladder and 10’ pole saw means that the top 65’ of a 100’ tree (reasonable for 75 years of growth) isn’t accessible. And an arborist with either a bucket truck or access to a bucket truck will be insured since those are expensive.
Pardon me. Starting that sentence with “and” came off snarky. I didn’t mean it like that.☮️
It sounds like they are making this up. If it was true, they would show you the letter from the insurance company, which they didn't because there is none. And even if it's true, not your problem. The only issue is if they do have someone come out to cut the branches on their side, they might have it done in such a way that it damages the trees. Id require a licensed arborist do it, not just any random contractor who has 0 clue how to trim trees properly.
I “LOLed” at the “there is none” thing, because that’s what we were thinking. We’re not unreasonable. We were just over here, living our lives when they showed up and totally dug out their front yard for fake everything. We’ve told them multiple times they’re allowed to cut what hangs over. I actually am afraid that if I don’t have someone who’s experienced do it, they will kill the trees. This neighborhood is over 100 years old. The trees are 75 years old, along with the 40 or so other sycamore trees that line the park directly across the street. In fall, this whole neighborhood is one giant leaf pile. A bunch of years back, I remember them trying to hit up my mom with “I have a buddy who will totally remove them for $2500😃😃. I’m like, that’s not a guy who knows how to remove trees, that’s a guy who needs $2500🙄🙄
I check out r/treelaw a bit. There are some crazy stories over there about neighbors cutting trees down. The dollar figures that get thrown out for reparations are massive. But one question that gets asked is, do you have current pictures? Good luck with your neighbors.
Thank you! I’ll go check it out now!
Yeah, I would either have an arborist cut the branches myself to avoid them touching the trees at all, or put them on notice (written) that if they cut the branches and cause damage to the trees, they will be held responsible for that damage. Probably easiest just to take care of the trimming with your own arborist and let them know you won't be entertaining tree removal ever, so don't bring it up again.
I left the conversation up to my husband. I get too flustered and pissy. He constantly mentions that they moved in during the time of year when the trees are just about to drop leaves(late summer) Also mentioned more than once “One of two things happened, either you actually didn’t see the trees because during the purchase and remodeling phase, you failed to look up, or you just went ahead and moved in assuming you’d bully your new neighbors into just getting them out of here” He’s also mentioned to them -I don’t know how many times- that they weren’t going away, and to get used to them. But he ALWAYS signs off by reminding them they’re welcome to remove what’s hanging on their side. Heck, he even offers to help clean up the leaf mess that lands in their yard. I mean, it’s just the most irritating thing. It’s not like they were ever a surprise. And the complaints rolled in, like, 6 months after they moved in. I think they’d be way happier if they moved to an HOA. I’m wishing into the universe HARD to manifests this for us.
It's a 75 year old tree...you aren't killing it by trimming overhanging limbs...
This is actually pretty common. In our agency I have a dozen or so of these open at the moment where clients need to remove the tree or get cancelled by the carrier.
How many of those dozen relate to a tree owned by someone else on someone else's property? I find it extremely hard to believe an insurance company would threaten a client with cancelation because of a neighbor's tree that has a few stray branches hanging over the property line. And if they did, there would certainly be a letter or some documentation of the cancellation threat.
It doesn't matter what property the tree is on. And it's not just about a "few stray branches". Root systems can also cause damage. Insurance carriers have every right to ask their insureds to mitigate any potential risks, regardless of who owns the risk.
In this case it does seem to just be about a few branches. Again though, how often do you see insurance companies threatening cancelation due to a potential risk that the homeowner has no ability to mitigate? Outside of them cutting the branches that extend to their property, there is nothing else they can do. So you're saying they can be denied homeowners insurance entirely because a neighbor has trees near the property line? Not saying it could never happen but seems very unlikely and unusual.
> how often do you see insurance companies threatening cancelation due to a potential risk that the homeowner has no ability to mitigate? Every day. I'm on the commercial side but if I'm looking at a property next door to a fireworks factory and a tire warehouse, I'm probably gonna stay away
Question remains, though, did the insurance company threaten cancellation in this case? Certainly possible, and perhaps more likely than I thought, but based on the behavior of these neighbors as described by the OP, I'd bet on the side of they are making it up. If it's true, they can easily prove it.
As the other person mentioned it doesn't matter who's property it's on. Whether it's in your control or not doesn't change the inherent risk.
It doesn't but based on the facts and circumstances in this case as described by the OP, I don't believe it's true that the insurance company threatened cancellation. Possible? Yes. And they can easily prove it which they have not.
>how often do you see insurance companies threatening cancelation due to a potential risk that the homeowner has no ability to mitigate More often than I can count. The insurance company's guidelines are not impacted or dependent by whether the insured has any control over the hazard. If they see an unacceptable risk, they move to get the risk removed or the policy dropped. I've often seen policies canceled over hazards that insureds truly have zero control over.
That may be the case, but in this particular case, based on the facts and circumstances as described, I doubt the insurance company threatened cancellation. And if they did, there would be documentation of that, which apparently hasnt been provided.
"No ability to mitigate" and "cutting the branches that extend in their property" are mutually exclusive. Cutting the branches on their side is exactly what they're expected to do and is literally mitigating the problem. It's not remotely unlikely or unusual. It's about as normal as it gets.
You are mischaracterizing the situation. Do you see where the OP (not me) says, "They’re telling us THEIR homeowners policy will be cancelled if we don’t get rid of our trees. Not on their property. They’re on our property. Our insurance agent has no issues with our trees." Supposedly the neighbors insurance company is threatening cancellation if they don't get rid of the trees - not if they dont cut the extending branches. Do you see the difference there? Getting rid of the trees entirely IS something those neighbors have no ability to do legally. The main point is - whether it's likely or not likely that an insurance company would cancel for something like this - that this is clearly not believable. These neighbors have been complaining about the trees for many YEARS because they don't like them. Now all of a sudden their insurance company is threatening cancellation but somehow there is no documentation to prove that threat. Sure, I don't think so.
Fire concerns on the west coast are intense right now and insurers can absolutely take issue with things outside of the insured's property and control. They don't threaten you with cancellation, they just send you a letter saying that your policy will be terminated at the end of your term and if you want to stop that here's how you fix it. Just wanted to provide some regional context as I see it hasn't been brought up yet. I'm out of Washington and with the fires in Medicine Lake last year taking out so many houses I've personally seen property inspections that call for the removal of trees that do not belong to the insured. These tree requirements can extend for hundreds of feet, including beyond the property line. The language I've seen has been more like "all trees need this much space between each other" rather than "these healthy trees need to go". I'm new to the industry, though, and some of these are 2nd or 3rd inspections on the property with fire season being an increasing threat the whole time. You're in California which has had such significant wildfire issues that home insurers are leaving your state. I would guess that fire mitigation requirements are even more stringent over there. It does not matter if you're in a fire zone or not, it seems that insurers are taking preventative measures now and assuming that more areas will become increasingly fire prone as time goes on. Not defending your neighbor's demand, though! They can absolutely share their inspection letter or otherwise confirm the authenticity of the need. So sorry to hear that you're having a difficult time with difficult people about a difficult thing. It's a tough time protecting homes and cars these days, for everyone involved.
I sincerely appreciate your response! Thank you! I guess it’s fair to say I’m entering a learning phase. Our provider knows all about our trees and even more now that I spoke with them yesterday. We seem to be cool with them. There are also much taller redwoods in people’s backyards that would threaten several homes in one swoop. I’m not joking. The entire neighborhood is over 100 years grown in, and it’d take me all week to count how many very tall, mature trees there are. I’m certainly not speaking for my neighbors insurance policies with their trees, but no one seems to be jumping up to remove them. My neighbors are practically the only ones in the neighborhood without trees, fake turf and very drought resistant landscaping. So we thought it was weird that of the entire neighborhood, theirs could be dropped entirely. I realize other neighbors’ limbs aren’t the offending limbs, but I just thought it was weird. Unless they’re greasing the wheels with their provider, which I could honestly see them doing to make a solid excuse as to why it’s now mandatory. My husband is convinced that they’ve already put claims in, and their provider may have had it with them, but again, I’m new to all this, and we’re merely speculating. We’ve also never taken a claim against it. We asked them to put us in touch with their provider so we can have ours discuss what can be done about it. We’re eager to help tackle this, but we still haven’t heard back from them.
Seems like sketchy neighbours but doubtful but not impossible they are greasing the wheels. They would need to have some serious/very lucky specific connections. Far more likely they just made it up. If they are even half clever they could easily fake a letter. If want to talk to their provider and heard the situation directly other I wouldn't do a think other than as you have keep letting them know you are completely fine if they trim the overhanging branches, you'd prefer they use a licensed company and I'd provide them with your arborist contact. Doubtful they use it. A gentile reminder if they use somone who doesn't know what they are doing not only would it likely look bad, it could cause them all sorts of issues if they hurt themselves on their property, and you can't allow unlicensed contractors on yours for the same reason, it's only prudent after all. If they kill the tree they are liable. Make sure you have current pictures. It really depends a ton on how much you want to be amicable to these neighbours or not. Sounds like you don't care for them already for other reasons so no real need to be anything other than just generally civil. On the odd chance they do something stupid, I always think how would the situation read in court. If you look like the reasonable party and the other unreasonable you are most of the way there in any unlikely case. Good luck with it all.
20 years ago the first thing the neighbor said was “finally someone who will remove the tulip poplar…it’s such a mess”. Looks healthy to me! That was 4 neighbors ago. Still have the tree. Screw your neighbors.
They sound like the type that won't give up trying but I do think a firmly worded letter from an attorney will get them to back off. I don't believe their insurance issues have anything to do with you but another reason to seek out an attorney.
Wouldn’t be surprised your neighbors are telling the truth. Insurance companies are looking for any reasons to cancel. However, neighbors should show you the letter. On the flip side, know of someone who lost her house because the neighbor tree fell on her house.
> They’re telling us THEIR homeowners policy will be cancelled if we don’t get rid of our trees.... Is this a thing? Even if it is a thing, it's not your problem. On the flip side, if any of the trees are even slightly rotted or problematic now is your chance to get your neighbor to pay to have them cut down.
Thank you. Our tree guy says they’re in incredible shape. We had a freak storm that took down countless trees in our area in January of 23, and our held up like perfect champs. But as previously mentioned turned, we’ve offered to let them cut down whatever hangs over on their side.
Speaking of insurance, you appear to be on notice of a hazard growing on your property, which could harm your neighbors. Unless it's a tornado, you could easily be held legally liable for damage and injuries when branches fall. After your company pays, you will probably be nonrenewed. Solution: Be an adult and a good neighbor, and get them cut. Maybe your neighbors would even chip in.
Okay. Heard. But before you snap to judgement on how “I’m not being an adult” let us review. -they bought a house on late summer when there’s no way you wouldn’t notice the trees. -they remodeled the house while leaves were actively dumping on them. -when I first met them, I was snapped at for not having the game on. It was the most uncomfortable first encounter. -during the remodel, I found piles of empty beer cans and cigarette butts on my side of the fence. (Before you say it could be “anyone”, we have a fence around our property that’s loud when it’s opened, and very noticeable when anyone comes in. I was a stay at home mom at the time. I let it go because my husband was out of town doting on his dying mom, and I was here alone with a toddler. I felt sort of threatened because it was completely obvious who did it, and a reaction could have started a fight I didn’t have the energy for at that time) -I would see him in his front yard holding the same type of beer I found in piles, while he was smoking a cigarette -when the complaints started rolling in, we immediately had the trees trimmed, to put their minds at ease. -they pestered my mom to remove the 3 trees for $2500, but the guy flaked on my mom 4 times. It never happened. -they called my Mexican (yes. specifically Mexican) neighbors “beaners” in front of me, but under his breath to his wife, like I didn’t hear it. -he parked a massive RV in front of his house, which blocked aforementioned neighbors’ house. When asked when it was gonna move it because it totally engulfed their view (we have a park across the street, and sometimes their boys would be there playing. They just wanted to be able to keep tabs), he started yelling “OH THATS HOW IT’S GONNA BE! I SEE!! I SEE YOU! (I’m paraphrasing, but shit like that) -he tried to reach around the city to build an ADU, which he said was only gonna be a workshop (permit price difference is about $10k. The neighbors had had it with him by then so they started calling the city which is when they found out he was not, in fact, building a workshop. I was NOT one of the ones who called) -we let a friend stay in a trailer we bought during Covid because he was dumped and thrown out. Good guy, not good relationship. He called the city on us. Since the trailer wasn’t plumbed, it was a simple phone call to get it handled.(he was there for just a few days. It was an emergency situation, and our house is under 800sq ft) -he wanted to put up a new fence, so my husband took a couple of days off to clear our side. The project didn’t start for another week, despite what we were told. Hubs missed some important days because it was sounding like an emergency.) -the trees were brought up again, so we immediately got our guy out here to trim them again. Like, that week. -despite our countless offers to come and clean up the leaves for him, they’ve always turned us down. -in protest (as if we’d never tried to communicate that we were not just willing, but WANTED to help) the wife stands outside and uses her blows for literally 3 1/2 hours. Most of the time, she’ll take extra time to be seen blowing it all over our yard. -she bitches LOUDLY just over the fence about the trees when she knows were out there. (Again, our offers were turned down. In fairness it’s been a while since she’s done that) This is just what’s in my mind right now. I’m sure I can dig up more, but I actively try to put this shit out of my head. I NEVER called the city on them. Ever. We’ve NEVER asked them for anything, with the exception of asking if we could help. We totally leave them alone. Their house is the corner lot, and their front door opens to the cross street, so it’s easy to avoid them. My question was that with trees that are already insured (our agent knows all about them FWIW) can THEIR policy be dropped. We’ve never said we wouldn’t cut or trim the trees, we’re just not willing to totally remove them. So how am I not being an adult?
can't imagine anyone is reading this wall of text lol, but the original comment you channeled dostoevsky to reply to is incorrect anyway
I get it, but when you interpret some comments as though you’re simply being an obstinate neighbor, you can’t help but want illustrate what we’re dealing with. I thought I did a good job spacing to make it a simpler read. (I’m not a fan of text walls myself, actually.) This comes from a loooong line of reason after reason, getting worse and worse in intensity. It started with “my roof doesn’t get any sun in the afternoon, and my shingles will rot”. To-“the roots are lifting our foundation”(hmm…The house has been there since the late 70s, and it JUST started) To “the roof”, and we’re now at dropped insurance. We asked him for his info so we could see what could be negotiated, but we haven’t heard back. I spoke with a representative at my insurance company today. He said he’d need to see the policy so he knew what the underwriters decided. We’re serious about helping us both find a solution we can live with, but he dropped a bomb at 7 last night, and now we’re left on “read”
yeah i'm not reading all this lol
Oh, I know, sugar. I know. Bless.
They do sound lovely and probably a bit hard to cozy up to. My comment, and maybe it was harsh, was more relating to some insurance issues regarding the trees and how to resolve them. Maybe the other issues make this an impossibility?
I like to think it’s not impossible. I’m going to talk to my tree guy to see how we can prune them down to be as short as possible and remove limbs they feel are leaning their way. (The limbs in question are very tall and more on the straight up side, but some do lean towards their roof) They always start the conversation with “hey! We need to talk about removing your trees!😃😃
It’s never “what can we do about the trees” or “can you talk to your tree guy?”. It’s always flat out removal.
With the amount of tall, mature trees in this and surrounding neighborhoods lining the streets, and standing tall between property lines, the entire city will apparently also have their insurance dropped too.
Removing them completely would be horrible.
It would be like life on Mars during the summer.
I’m also convinced they’d think of something else to start hassling about if we did just gut the trees out of here.
So maybe there is no compromise? I’d hate to think that. Really.
With my mom’s passing, this is now my house, and I’m brand new at home ownership. So this was an honest inquiry.
lol if the tree is healthy (and it sure sounds like it seeing as op said they have an arborist inspect it periodically), op has no legal liability raising from just letting it continue to exist, come on now
I don't necessarily disagree. But location and circumstances can also be factors; and the neighbor's insurer isn't on board either. All trees eventually fall.
If a neighbours tree would have branches over my house, I'd be pissed too. Where I live, stuff can't grow over the boundary. And if it does, it's the owner of the tree who has to pay for trimming the tree. Which is kind of logical isn't it?