Can Homeowners insurance be cancelled for non-removal of tree debris?

Question

The situation:
Storm came through and knocked down two trees in my mother's yard. One (tree A) fell onto her fence, one (tree B) fell harmlessly onto her lawn.

Insurance paid for:

• fence repair
• removal of tree A

Insurance did not pay for

• Anything whatsoever to do with tree B

Now I am being told that her insurance carrier is threatening to cancel her policy due to the fact that there is "debris" in the yard from tree B.
Additionally, she told me that the state insurance regulation office (Florida) has told her that this is totally within their right to do so.

This makes no sense to me. Am I insane, or is this a common practice?

Possibly worthy of note: She has had this insurance (had this home) for over five years, and this is the first claim ever on the policy.

Answer 1

The state insurance regulation office (Florida) has told her that this is totally within their right to do so.

Respectfully, mom contacted her state regulatory agency, and received an answer, but you're here to seek an alternate view?

The downed tree is an attractive nuisance. If I were 8 again, I'd love to come play on it, fall off, break my ankle and sue mom. But, the insurance company doesn't need to spell this out, they just want your mom to pay the couple hundred bucks to remove it.

Even in Florida, people sell cordwood. Depending what kind of tree that was, someone might be happy to come harvest it at no cost. They'll sell the firewood. Just a thought.

Answer 2

It depends a bit on the actual policy she has, but yes, they can cancel the policy. Tree B (the debris) now poses a threat to the property and its inhabitants. If you do not remove the debris and another storm comes through or someone gets hurt by it while on the property, the insurance company won't want to pay out to cover it.

Answer 3

My family background is in real estate and law. I have a good amount of experience in dealing with homeowners insurance / insurance companies. This has little to do with policy coverage and more to do with how insurance companies work. The truth of the matter is that the insurance company is looking for a reason to cancel the policy, unfortunately. To them, one claim is too many claims. They love collecting your monthly payment but dislike paying out on claims. One claim in five years doesn't look good when they see your mom as a "high risk" via the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange (CLUE), a database, which used by insurance companies to share histories of claims or damage reports on property.

From what I have read, your mom will not be canceled because of the tree but the insurance company is sending a "message" to your mom. If your mother makes a second claim they will 100% cancel her. This isn't just about your mom, if anyone makes 2 claims, they will be canceled.

It is really important to assess the damage and cost of replacing without using your homeowners insurance. When you file a homeowners claim make sure that filing a claim is worth it.

With all that I know and have witnessed, if a storm crushed my deck, I would pay to replace the deck without involving my insurance. It's better to save the claim for something major.

Answer 4

Ask the insurance carrier to explain to you, in writing, why they regard the tree as dangerous. Then take that back to the insurance regulation board and complain that they are refusing to cover damage caused by an accident that creates a risk. The insurance regulation board is less about forcing insurers to provide insurance, and more about forcing insurers to pay up after collecting premiums. So make the problem fit what they're most willing to do: force payment on a claim.

I wouldn't worry so much about the insurer canceling the insurance. That happens or it doesn't. Worry about collecting on the claim.

If that doesn't work, pay for the tree removal. Switch insurers. Contact a lawyer to see if anything else can be done. If not, move on with your life.

The advantage of going through the regulators rather than a lawyer is that their help is free. The lawyer will charge someone for helping. And it doesn't sound like this is a big ticket case where a small commission is significant money.

If you do go to a lawyer, consider going to a large firm. A large firm can better support a court case for recovery. Which paradoxically means that they are less likely to have to go to court. It's easier for the insurance company to just pay out. The insurance company can better play chicken with a small law firm or an individual lawyer.

Answer 5

Insurance coverage varies by state, so only someone familiar with Florida give a specific answer, like the state insurance board. But in general, the insurance is there to compensate for unforeseen and significant damage to the home and other insured property. A fallen tree has not damaged an insured structure so the owner has not suffered a loss to covered property. There should be no payment under the contract.

Another example would be an underground plumbing leak, the insurance will cover damage to the home's foundation but not the actual repair of the pipe. So if the leak has not caused damage there is no covered loss. A closer example would be the repair to the sewage pipe that connects to the city sewer for a break in the yard. A leak in the yard does not immediately damage the home but its continued leaking can eventually and foreseeably cause damage and can become unsanitary to the point the home will be uninhabitable. It is up to the homeowner to do a repair and reasonable to insist that it is done to maintain coverage. The repair would be home maintenance not an insured loss.

Insurance is there to cover the cost of accidental loss to insured property. The insurance is not there to shoulder the burden of home maintenance. That expense comes with home ownership.

Florida is a very high risk state for windstorm damage. It is reasonable for the insurance company to insist that the home be well maintained to mitigate that risk. A downed tree in the yard, essentially a brush pile, a source for wind blown debris and a risk for future damage to the home, to other's property as well being unsightly and an attraction to rodents. It is the financial obligation of the homeowner as well as the neighborly thing to do to remove debris from the yard.

Answer 6

100% Yes they can and will cancel a policy for this.

1. You are required to keep the property in good working condition and repair any and all hazards ASAP. A fallen tree is a hazard that needs to be repaired.

2. The insurance company may feel that cleanup of tree B was included in the price in tree A. This gets tricky but essentially if they paid for "yard clean up" or "derbies removal", then from their perspective tree B should have been part of that.

3. They may see it as a faulty claim. You claim fence was broke, you claimed tree A fell. Did you try any claim damages from tree B? Should you have?

Almost certainly, you fall under #1. Basically you made a claim, this means the property is in a dangerous state. They paid "their part" but your property is still dangerous. You need to fix it, or they can refuse to insure you.

Yes this is normal, yes it is (IANAL) legal, and yes they can cancel a claim if not corrected. By the way, tree removal is very cheap. The cost of the removal is probably way less then the cost of fighting this in any way.

Answer 7

• The insurance company doesn't cover fallen trees.
• The insurance company does cover damage done by fallen trees.
• The insurance company doesn't cover homes which are not maintained to their specific standards.

None of these are illegal. If you require coverage for fallen trees which cause no damage, then you may need to find an insurance company or rider that will cover that.

Beyond that, though, hopefully you can see how these three explanations of coverage have led you to your situation. Not all damage caused by a storm is covered by an insurance company, and, as you've discovered, some damage not covered can cause you to lose coverage if you do not proactively resolve the problem.