Your trees where dropped the op's tree can not be dropped according to them there is no where to drop it. I know i have a huge maple in my back yard that is the same it will need taken down a piece at a time. and yes that is very dangerous and expensive. You say yours can only go one way the op says theirs cant go anyway that is the difference
Need this tree gone
- Thread starter barmstrong2
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
claydogg84
Minister of Fire
Not going to argue with you. OP states it has to be taken down from the top, yet you seem to know more than him without having actually seen the tree in person.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
If it was me, I'd use this as an opportunity to drop some of those other trees that are right above your house and property. Organic matter dropping on your roof and property isn't good for anything. Get some sun on that house...it is good for it! Have them include a few others as well.
If you want to do it yourself, rent one of those buckets that extends 60' that you can tow behind a truck. They are great for this sort of thing. You'll still have to have a great deal of skill not to hurt yourself or anything around you.
If you want to do it yourself, rent one of those buckets that extends 60' that you can tow behind a truck. They are great for this sort of thing. You'll still have to have a great deal of skill not to hurt yourself or anything around you.
While I agree wholeheartedly that thinning the trees would be a good thing, we are waterfront. The entire lot is inside the 100' shoreline zone, so, we are prohibited from doing most anything. Dead trees can be brought down, no issues. Live trees are another story.
This tree is 120' tall, so, a 60' bucket isn't going to do. The cost of rental equipment is almost as much as the cost to hire the job out.
You wouldn't get me to climb that sucker and drop it from the top for 650 bean pods
. Just say'in - I don't see that price as unreasonable at all.
. Just say'in - I don't see that price as unreasonable at all.
Ask for a "cash price", see if they come in a little lower. I had 20" DBH dead ash tree that was leaning right at my house but considerably less dangerous the one you're talking about removed for $300 with climbers, ropes, and a turf-friendly man lift, so your $650 doesn't sound bad at all. If you get 'em to $500, shake the guys hand and ask when they can start.
Actually, it's probably not worded so you can understand it. A quick Google search turned up this: Law Dictionary: Will Homeowner's Insurance Pay to Remove a Hazardous Tree?
To make matters worse, your homeowner's insurance company won't pay to remove a hazardous tree from your property. Under the terms of most homeowner's insurance policies, homeowners are required to perform any maintenance work that's necessary to prevent significant damage to their homes. This provision is often sweeping. In fact, homeowner's insurance companies interpret it to cover routine maintenance tasks like storm-proofing windows as well as more complicated jobs like removing potentially dangerous trees.
It can also have serious real-world consequences. If your homeowner's insurance company can prove that you failed to perform certain types of maintenance work, it may try to associate this failure with certain subsequent damages to your home. If it can do so successfully, it may refuse to pay out on claims related to these damages. As such, it's important that you keep your home and property in excellent repair. Although this could be expensive in the short term, it's liable to pay off in the event that you file a claim. After all, repairing a potential problem is usually far cheaper than paying for the catastrophic damage that it's likely to cause.
If one of the trees on your property falls on your house, your homeowner's insurance company will try to prove that the tree was dead or dying. If it can do so, it will accuse you of failing to take the necessary steps to remove the tree and use this "fact" as justification for denying your claim. In order to prevent this outcome, you'll need to pay for the removal of the tree out of your own pocket.
Sooo .. get 'er done.
Getting back to my daughter's neighbors . . three neighbors had dying ash trees that were hanging over a school yard. The other day the city issued them a 7 day order to have all the trees removed that were endangering the school or the city would remove them and add the bill to their city taxes. Gotta love that choice
paul bunion
Minister of Fire
Judging by the van and shed in your picture and what you have circled I'd estimate that tree is at most 70 feet tall and probably a bit less.
Beer Belly
Minister of Fire
Yeah. This guys an amatuer. I could've knocked down both the house and v the shed and probably broken windows in the neighbors house.
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
You know that just bothers me, If my neighbor has a tree that falls onto my property and does damage, I would have to use my homeowners insurance, I just cant knock on my neighbors door and demand that they remove something from there property because of a possible / potential issue.
Lockpicker
Member
BIGDADDY
Feeling the Heat
- May 17, 2012
- 416
Actually, it's probably not worded so you can understand it. A quick Google search turned up this: Law Dictionary: Will Homeowner's Insurance Pay to Remove a Hazardous Tree?
To make matters worse, your homeowner's insurance company won't pay to remove a hazardous tree from your property. Under the terms of most homeowner's insurance policies, homeowners are required to perform any maintenance work that's necessary to prevent significant damage to their homes. This provision is often sweeping. In fact, homeowner's insurance companies interpret it to cover routine maintenance tasks like storm-proofing windows as well as more complicated jobs like removing potentially dangerous trees.
It can also have serious real-world consequences. If your homeowner's insurance company can prove that you failed to perform certain types of maintenance work, it may try to associate this failure with certain subsequent damages to your home. If it can do so successfully, it may refuse to pay out on claims related to these damages. As such, it's important that you keep your home and property in excellent repair. Although this could be expensive in the short term, it's liable to pay off in the event that you file a claim. After all, repairing a potential problem is usually far cheaper than paying for the catastrophic damage that it's likely to cause.
If one of the trees on your property falls on your house, your homeowner's insurance company will try to prove that the tree was dead or dying. If it can do so, it will accuse you of failing to take the necessary steps to remove the tree and use this "fact" as justification for denying your claim. In order to prevent this outcome, you'll need to pay for the removal of the tree out of your own pocket.
Sooo .. get 'er done.
Getting back to my daughter's neighbors . . three neighbors had dying ash trees that were hanging over a school yard. The other day the city issued them a 7 day order to have all the trees removed that were endangering the school or the city would remove them and add the bill to their city taxes. Gotta love that choice
I don't think reputable insurance companies try to get out of paying claims. I've filed A few claims over the years medical dental auto and home ,including total loss of my home. They did investigate with the fire marshal to find the cause of the fire but the insurance company didn't try to get out of paying the claim. I think it would be foolish to allow a dead tree to stand close to your house. If a dead tree did fall on your house I don't see how an insurance company could say that they know that you knew that the tree was dead. Unless you call them up or wrote them a letter or an email telling them that your tree in your yard is dead.
In short I think we agree that any dead trees near your house or any issues that the homeowner is aware of that could cause a devastating loss should be takien care not to avoid getting denied a claim but for safety of family. I just disagree with you about the fact that insurance companies are going to try to get out of paying claims by trying to blame the home owner for the loss. I base this on my experience with my insurance company whether it was auto or home owner policy or health.I certainly believe that any insurance company that collects premiums from customers but would act as you suggest ,would not remain in the insurance business. They would not be my insurance company.
I have Erie. Who is your insurance company?
The insurance company is irrelevant. I am quoting from a site that gives general information on insurance claims. You brought up a valid point that the insurance company would need to know that the tree was dead. That is covered in my quote "If your homeowner's insurance company can prove that you failed to perform certain types of maintenance work".
If the insurance company wants to challenge a claim (and that's the key part), it would be pretty easy for them to discover that the tree that did all the damage was dead. They also could easily talk to neighbors, since most of us have at least someone who doesn't like us. Even Google street view is reasonably up to date as I have been discovering while searching for real estate. Some 'for sale' listings have photos that are much older than Google's !! I've had only one claim with my own home insurance in 40+ years and that was a violent wind storm that knocked out our power lines. They initially said I was not covered but I read the policy carefully (not fun stuff) and told them they were wrong. I got my claim paid.
I agree that it's always better to take care of dead/dying trees quickly but I need to point out to forum members that they must do their own due diligence.
Some do some dont. Some times the adjuster or claims agent is just in a bad mood. And other times the company has a policy of denying claims if at all possible. There are also some which will gladly pay for preventive measures. We deal with insurance companies allot and some times they can really be pretty bad.
Well, there it is. Turns out, this tree is maple. I had assumed oak because all the other trees around it are oak. Of course, with no leaves, it's hard to tell. The grain inside says maple. White with a dark brown center. About 40% of the trunk was punky to around 10' up. Good to have it down. I've got most of it bucked and the brush is loaded on the truck. Need to get it split and stacked now, so, it'll be out of the way for snow.
While I was waiting for the phone call from the tree service this morning, I went out to scrounge a blowdown I'd seen earlier in the week. That turned out to be mostly punky, but, on the way there, I saw some oak logs laying up on a bank that had obviously been there for awhile. There were 15, in all, from about 8" to 18", 4 or 5 feet in length. Made a decent 1/2 pickup load of nice, solid oak and the call came as I was loading the last of it. Good morning, overall.
I had one other contractor come out to give a quote and he was significantly higher. I went with the $650. Well worth it. They did do a good job.
Got it. Yours were done by a hack with a chainsaw, a rope, and a truck. Those kind work cheaply, and as long as it's an easy job and they get lucky, it's all good.
Real tree companies don't work that way.
I see! So, based on one picture you know better what hazards are present, how much room there is, etc., than the guy who lives there.
Makes sense to me.
$650 for that job is dirt cheap. I'd be checking references and insurance very carefully at that price.
All's well that ends well. How tall did it turn out to be? I'm thinking paul bunion's 70' estimate is closer to the mark than your first estimate of 120'. Just curious.
I used to be REALLY, really bad at estimating height. Got a wake up call when I insisted a certain radio tower couldn't be over 150', and it turned out to be 300'
Since then I've worked at getting better, but I'm still not very good at it.
- Status
