I ain’t no lawyer, but I’ve always understood the legal term “Act of God” to mean an “unexpected act for which no person would normally be held responsible.”
If the trees along the road have a history of breaking branches, then the city has a responsibility for damages. But if the tree is healthy, but was struck by lightning last night…not so much.
Our healthy tree fell in our yard and hit the neighbor’s roof.
The insurance company paid us for a damaged retaining wall and cleaning up the tree. As far as the neighbor’s roof, that was an “Act of God”.
Go figure.
If a healthy tree is felled in a storm, the convention is that the insurance company covering the property where the damage occurred is responsible. It doesn’t matter where the tree fell from. You (or your insurance company) are not liable for damage caused by a tree falling from your property onto your neighbor’s house unless you were negligent (negligence might mean failing to attend to a rotting dead tree that your neighbor had requested that you remove).
http://www.iii.org/article/trees-and-insurance
So in your situation, it would have been two different insurance companies involved for the damage on each property, and two different deductibles. If your neighbor didn’t get paid, that’s between him and his insurance company. If he chose a policy with a high deductible, that may have been the issue. I hope you didn’t get talked into paying out of pocket for his repairs?
He had no insurance. I gave him the insurance money I had left after paying to have the tree removed. His roof was in a bad way.
So this isn’t a case of “weasel words” at all. Nor is it surprising. Your initial post suggested something completely different
Your insurance company paid for the damage to your property. It would have paid for damage to his if you were at fault, but you weren’t.
It was his fault for not having insurance for his property.
Despite your implication that the evil insurance company was using weasel words to avoid its obligations, it was acting as it should have.
I think it is interesting that it was insurable damage for me, but an Act of God for my neighbor with the same tree.
But I was able to give him some of the insurance money to fix his roof, and no one ate anything they shouldn’t have, so I will call it a win win.
It’s not that interesting, it’s more that there is not much education or understanding on this topic.
Your insurance covers you when your property is damaged. It’s for you not your neighbour. And (depending on the terms) your insurance typically pays out to you for damage to your property from either:
[ul][li]any cause, subject to some exceptions which basically never include Act of God (a “all risks” policy); or[/li][li]caused by certain events which would pretty much always include Acts of God (a "named risks’ policy).[/ul][/li]Consequently the fact that an Act of God caused the damage to your property is the very reason the insurance paid out.
Your insurance doesn’t cover your neighbour.
However, your insurance would typically include a liability provision. That liability provision will cover your loss (not your neighbours’) if you are legally liable to your neighbour for certain reasons. An Act of God causing a tree to damage your neighbours’ property is not something you are liable for. So your insurer doesn’t cover you for that liability.
To put it as simply as I can, one is not usually liable for Acts of God, so you are not liable to your neighbour for his damage (so there is nothing for the insurer to pay to you in that respect). However, your insurer is liable to you for damage to your property caused by an Act of God, because that’s what they contracted to cover.
Thanks, Princechester, I now understand!