4 ms·

I'm not a lawyer but reddit's r/legaladvice seems to enjoy referring to people to tree lawyers. From what I gather there's a lot of money involved in tree laws.

I'm not a lawyer but reddit's r/legaladvice seems to enjoy referring to people to tree lawyers. From what I gather there's a lot of money involved in tree laws. And if you've got picture evidence that's especially loved by lawyers.

ivalm 6y ago
But section 8 tenants don’t have money to compensate either.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
It probably isn't worthwhile to litigate against Section 8 voucher recipients. Not much in terms of assets to recover for your monetary damages.
- inetknght 6y ago
  Litigate against the tenant? You're probably right. But insurance? Maybe.
  - sky_rw 6y ago
    Every time I see comments like this, and no direct offense intended, It always strikes me as coming from somebody who has never filed large insurance claims before. Been seeing this so much with riots lately, "oh you have insurance right, why you mad about your business getting destroyed?". If only it was that simple.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      The largest insurance claim I've had was for a little over $5k for a vehicle repair after collision while avoiding a pedestrian in the street. I'm not sure if you think that's "large" but it was very painless to do IMO.
      - danson 6y ago
        That's not large in this context. It would need to be large enough to cover several thousand pounds of legal defense fees to investigate and argue against the claim. So at least several tens of thousands of dollars. Source: been through insurance claim on a business that burnt to the ground with months of finished product stock (and which our accountant had accidentally under-insured. Very painful!)
      - sfj 6y ago
        I wasn't able to collect on insurance for “damage not due to a collision” on my motorcycle when it blew over in strong wind, because the insurance agent said, “There was a collision. When your motorcycle fell over it collided with the ground.”
        kuzimoto 6y ago
        What does it cover? Isn't any sort of damage potentially a collision?
        gruez 6y ago
        I'm guessing it's only supposed to cover "traffic accidents", as opposed to "user caused" accidents (eg. dropping your phone on the ground).
        sfj 6y ago
        Actually the opposite. Damage due to non-collision.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        kube-system 6y ago
        That's BS, damage due to wind when nobody was occupying the vehicle is clearly an act of god and in no way was due to your control of the vehicle.
        6y ago
    - virmundi 6y ago
      Depends on the insurer too. Riots might not be covered. Neither was pandemic. Sucks to be a small business right now. Anyone got first hand experience with SBA loans?
      - uoaei 6y ago
        If riots aren't covered in cities and neighborhoods with historical precedent of civil unrest, I don't think that's anyone's fault but the policy provider's.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Why the provider and not the purchaser who chose that insurance? It’s spelled out in the contract what you’re buying (and paying for).
        uoaei 6y ago
        "If riots aren't covered" the clause won't be in any contract to begin with.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        I think that's generally false. Policies are generally written to cover a broad set of risks (which would include riots, terrorism, and acts of war) and then have exceptions listed specifically. It would be rare in my experience for property insurance to itemize the types of losses they cover. As an example, my policy covers general losses arising from physical damage, but then explicitly excludes losses from earthquakes, floods, oil spills, and acts of war. If I buy only that coverage and a flood or earthquake damages my property, it's not my insurance company's fault that I'm not covered.
        uoaei 6y ago
        What I'm saying is obviously true. What you seem to be concerned about is that you think the premise is false. If that is so, you haven't really communicated that...
    - CivBase 6y ago
      Watching Louis Rossman's videos on insurance recently has given me a whole new perspective on the subject. It's amazing just how much they get away with.
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        I've seen a lot of shady insurance practices of trying to get out of paying claims, but that "pandemic insurance won't pay for coronavirus because sars-covid2 is not specifically mentioned in the policy" takes the cake. The policy actually specifically says that it covers "flu and sars and other types of coronaviruses". The fact that they are trying to waste people's time and money to litigate that out where they most certainly will not win is just unconscionable.
      - giancarlostoro 6y ago
        Have not seen those yet but this should be a friendly reminder that insurance companies jobs are literally to do everything they possibly can to not pay you any damages or the least amount in damages. They are after all for profit organizations so whatever they can do to keep as much cash as possible is the goal.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      My dad was an insurance adjuster. He loved denying claims more than anything. "I'm not good at math, but I sure can subtract!" Fucker had a major power trip. Also had a slight anti-corporate bent, so he loved approving claims too.
      - wutbrodo 6y ago
        He loved denying claims and he loved approving claims? How does that not completely cancel out, except perhaps for "he loves his job"?
        klyrs 6y ago
        He did love his job. He enjoyed handling hundred-million dollar checks, among other things. But the glee that he got out of denying a claim was perverse.
    - taude 6y ago
      Exactly. There's reason stores are proactively boarding up their store fronts, etc. to mitigate the change of having to go through the horrendous loses of business loss, and fighting insurance companies for money.
ceocoder 6y ago
Here[0] is one I reading from last year, treelaw is no joke. Birdlaw however is very much a joke. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/7p3ubz/updateoregon_neighbor_cut_down_trees_on_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/7p3ubz/updateo...
Waterluvian 6y ago
Can’t litigate against people who are judgment proof.
PhantomGremlin 6y ago
Two words: Judgment Proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof But if it's Section 8, maybe he can find some govt agency to sue?
jungletime 6y ago
Is she personally responsible, or is the insurance that is paying for the rent responsible. She signed the lease, but her insurance company is paying the rent. I would like to have some sort of compensation, to cover the cost to relandscape, and possibly for removing a very large tree which is likely to die now.
messick 6y ago
It’s the opposite. Tree Law!!!! is about people melting down over stuff a real lawyer wouldn’t even take a phone call about. That’s why they are on Reddit melting down about it.

ivalm 6y ago

But section 8 tenants don’t have money to compensate either.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

It probably isn't worthwhile to litigate against Section 8 voucher recipients. Not much in terms of assets to recover for your monetary damages.

inetknght 6y ago
Litigate against the tenant? You're probably right. But insurance? Maybe.
- sky_rw 6y ago
  Every time I see comments like this, and no direct offense intended, It always strikes me as coming from somebody who has never filed large insurance claims before. Been seeing this so much with riots lately, "oh you have insurance right, why you mad about your business getting destroyed?". If only it was that simple.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    The largest insurance claim I've had was for a little over $5k for a vehicle repair after collision while avoiding a pedestrian in the street. I'm not sure if you think that's "large" but it was very painless to do IMO.
    - danson 6y ago
      That's not large in this context. It would need to be large enough to cover several thousand pounds of legal defense fees to investigate and argue against the claim. So at least several tens of thousands of dollars. Source: been through insurance claim on a business that burnt to the ground with months of finished product stock (and which our accountant had accidentally under-insured. Very painful!)
    - sfj 6y ago
      I wasn't able to collect on insurance for “damage not due to a collision” on my motorcycle when it blew over in strong wind, because the insurance agent said, “There was a collision. When your motorcycle fell over it collided with the ground.”
      - kuzimoto 6y ago
        What does it cover? Isn't any sort of damage potentially a collision?
        gruez 6y ago
        I'm guessing it's only supposed to cover "traffic accidents", as opposed to "user caused" accidents (eg. dropping your phone on the ground).
        sfj 6y ago
        Actually the opposite. Damage due to non-collision.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kube-system 6y ago
        That's BS, damage due to wind when nobody was occupying the vehicle is clearly an act of god and in no way was due to your control of the vehicle.
      - 6y ago
  - virmundi 6y ago
    Depends on the insurer too. Riots might not be covered. Neither was pandemic. Sucks to be a small business right now. Anyone got first hand experience with SBA loans?
    - uoaei 6y ago
      If riots aren't covered in cities and neighborhoods with historical precedent of civil unrest, I don't think that's anyone's fault but the policy provider's.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Why the provider and not the purchaser who chose that insurance? It’s spelled out in the contract what you’re buying (and paying for).
        uoaei 6y ago
        "If riots aren't covered" the clause won't be in any contract to begin with.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        I think that's generally false. Policies are generally written to cover a broad set of risks (which would include riots, terrorism, and acts of war) and then have exceptions listed specifically. It would be rare in my experience for property insurance to itemize the types of losses they cover. As an example, my policy covers general losses arising from physical damage, but then explicitly excludes losses from earthquakes, floods, oil spills, and acts of war. If I buy only that coverage and a flood or earthquake damages my property, it's not my insurance company's fault that I'm not covered.
        uoaei 6y ago
        What I'm saying is obviously true. What you seem to be concerned about is that you think the premise is false. If that is so, you haven't really communicated that...
  - CivBase 6y ago
    Watching Louis Rossman's videos on insurance recently has given me a whole new perspective on the subject. It's amazing just how much they get away with.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I've seen a lot of shady insurance practices of trying to get out of paying claims, but that "pandemic insurance won't pay for coronavirus because sars-covid2 is not specifically mentioned in the policy" takes the cake. The policy actually specifically says that it covers "flu and sars and other types of coronaviruses". The fact that they are trying to waste people's time and money to litigate that out where they most certainly will not win is just unconscionable.
    - giancarlostoro 6y ago
      Have not seen those yet but this should be a friendly reminder that insurance companies jobs are literally to do everything they possibly can to not pay you any damages or the least amount in damages. They are after all for profit organizations so whatever they can do to keep as much cash as possible is the goal.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    My dad was an insurance adjuster. He loved denying claims more than anything. "I'm not good at math, but I sure can subtract!" Fucker had a major power trip. Also had a slight anti-corporate bent, so he loved approving claims too.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      He loved denying claims and he loved approving claims? How does that not completely cancel out, except perhaps for "he loves his job"?
      - klyrs 6y ago
        He did love his job. He enjoyed handling hundred-million dollar checks, among other things. But the glee that he got out of denying a claim was perverse.
  - taude 6y ago
    Exactly. There's reason stores are proactively boarding up their store fronts, etc. to mitigate the change of having to go through the horrendous loses of business loss, and fighting insurance companies for money.

ceocoder 6y ago

Here[0] is one I reading from last year, treelaw is no joke. Birdlaw however is very much a joke. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/7p3ubz/updateoregon_neighbor_cut_down_trees_on_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/7p3ubz/updateo...

Waterluvian 6y ago

Can’t litigate against people who are judgment proof.

PhantomGremlin 6y ago

Two words: Judgment Proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof But if it's Section 8, maybe he can find some govt agency to sue?

jungletime 6y ago

Is she personally responsible, or is the insurance that is paying for the rent responsible. She signed the lease, but her insurance company is paying the rent. I would like to have some sort of compensation, to cover the cost to relandscape, and possibly for removing a very large tree which is likely to die now.

messick 6y ago

It’s the opposite. Tree Law!!!! is about people melting down over stuff a real lawyer wouldn’t even take a phone call about. That’s why they are on Reddit melting down about it.