Roofer wrecked my tree, I have a witness. Is liability limited to tree removal cost?

[Brian in Denver-ish]

What is the name of your state? Colorado, Lakewood

A roofer wrecked a nice shade tree in front of my house this week, as witnessed by my neighbor. I called a tree service and got an estimate for $535 to remove a large part of the tree. Is the roofer liability limited to this cost or is there precedent to ask for compensation for loss of aesthetics or something similar?

We do have a contract and the roofer is insured. But I don't see anything in the contract about liability for damage to the house. We talked about moving items away from the house, but this is a tree.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Colorado, Lakewood

A roofer wrecked a nice shade tree in front of my house this week, as witnessed by my neighbor. I called a tree service and got an estimate for $535 to remove a large part of the tree. Is the roofer liability limited to this cost or is there precedent to ask for compensation for loss of aesthetics or something similar?

We do have a contract and the roofer is insured. But I don't see anything in the contract about liability for damage to the house. We talked about moving items away from the house, but this is a tree.

What do you mean by "moving items away from the house?" Did the tree need to be trimmed back, away from the house roof?

Insurance covers the loss of trees.

 

[adjusterjack]

Insurance covers the loss of trees.

Homeowners insurance limits coverage for trees to $500 for only the following causes:

a. Fire or Lightning;
b. Explosion;
c. Riot or Civil Commotion;
d. Aircraft;
e. Vehicles not owned or operated by a resident of the "residence premises";
f. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief; or
g. Theft.

Is the roofer liability limited to this cost or is there precedent to ask for compensation for loss of aesthetics or something similar?

The roofer is liable for the cost of removing the damaged tree and replacing it with the same type and size of the damaged tree.

I don't see anything in the contract about liability for damage to the house

Doesn't have to be in the contract. Negligence law makes the roofer liable for damage that he causes.

How, exactly, did he "wreck" the tree?

 

[Brian in Denver-ish]

Wow, thanks for the replies. All part of the big circle I suppose.

The roofer-contractor was putting their big conveyer-belt-thing in place. They use this device to get the heavy shingles up on the roof. My neighbor says the contraption is folded up on a truck then unfolds with the help of a crane-type of thing. He thought to himself 'no way' and watched. He saw they were about to hit the tree and tried to get the to stop but they ignored him and the equipment hit a major branch. It twisted the trunk and 'crack!' the top of the trunk split. We had an arborist come take a look and he said he could cut ~20' off the trunk where another major branch meets the trunk. The net effect is our beautiful tree will not look so beautiful, after $535 for the arborist to cut it back and haul away the scrap. The neighbor watched the whole thing.

I have heard of roofers wiggling out of having to pay for damage to things around a house under a contractual clause requiring homeowners to move items away from the house. But this is a tree.

The roofer is liable for the cost of removing the damaged tree and replacing it with the same type and size of the damaged tree.

This is encouraging. I'm not sure how they can replace the missing trunk. Might this be grounds to ask for something more than the $535 for the trunk removal?

Thanks for your time.

 

[adjusterjack]

The roofer-contractor was putting their big conveyer-belt-thing in place. They use this device to get the heavy shingles up on the roof.

Yes, I'm familiar with the truck and the conveyor belt.

Now that you have explained what happened, it might not be the roofer's liability. If the delivery truck belonged to the materials supplier and was operated by the supplier's employees, your roofer might not be liable.

When I buy shingles from Home Depot, Home Depot has its supplier deliver it with that truck. Only the supplier's employees work the truck, the conveyor, and piling the materials on the roof. My roofers stand by until the delivery is complete. My roofers have no liability for anything that happens with the delivery truck, nor would Home Depot.

You're going to have to find out who owns and operates the delivery truck and that's who you make your claim against.

We had an arborist come take a look and he said he could cut ~20' off the trunk where another major branch meets the trunk. The net effect is our beautiful tree will not look so beautiful,

That's another issue. Trees are living things. They eventually grow new limbs. Might not look as beautiful for a while. Part of negligence law is that a person damaged by another's negligence must mitigate his damages. If you choose to get rid of the whole tree when you don't have to, you aren't likely to get paid for its replacement if removing just the damaged trunk won't kill the tree.

 

[Brian in Denver-ish]

Nah, I'm definitely not cutting the tree down. I'm really trying to figure out if I should just ask for the $535 to pay the arborist to cut out the damaged part of the trunk or if there might be precedent for liability beyond that.

 

[adjusterjack]

I'm really trying to figure out if I should just ask for the $535 to pay the arborist to cut out the damaged part of the trunk

Yes. Do.

or if there might be precedent for liability beyond that.

There isn't.