Two Trees Equals One "occurrence"?

[cprstn54]

I paid a premium to cover boats stored on trailers on my property, with a $7,500 limit "per occurrence." During a storm, two different, wide-apart trees fell on two different boats causing respectively $9,000 and $3,000 in damage. The carrier offered $7,500 on the ground that the storm was the occurrence. I say each falling tree is an occurrence because the storm would not have damaged the boats but for the trees.

This seems to be a contentious area. Any thoughts?

Ken C

 

[VolAgent]

I would probably side with the insurance company on this one. The storm is the root cause of the problem. It is what knocked over the trees. That is the occurrence. Unfortunately, it sucks for you as now they aren't covering all the damage.

First review your policy to see the exact wording. Look at it objectively and see which interpretation it favors, yours or the company's. Also, try talking with the adjuster and see if you can get him to see things your way.

If that doesn't work, try escalating the dispute to his supervisor. If push comes to shove, you can always file a complaint with the DOI and/or hire an attorney.

 

[Aram Fingal]

A storm is considered and occurrence. This can actually work in your favor if you have certain types of policies. In some bundled packages there is a single deductible per occurrence across all lines (auto, home, boat, etc). So if multiple trees fell and took out your car, your boat and part of your house, instead of paying a separate deductible for each it would only be one deductible (they use whichever is the highest of each of the lines effected)

However, in this particular situation it wouldn't have helped. That's why you should make sure that all coverage on your policy covers the items/property for the full value. I get this occasionally with people who have multiple out buildings on their property and think they only need enough to cover the most expensive one because they don't think anything will every happen to more than one at a time. Murphy's law would dictate otherwise and I always try and convince them to have coverage in case of a total loss of all buildings. They don't always listen, but I document the discussion to cover my butt.

 

[djs]

Occurrence is the real root cause of what caused the damage. In this case, it sounds like it is the storm. The storm caused the trees to blow over, they didn't just fall, which means its a single occurrence.

On the other hand, if it had been a calm day and they both fell over on the same day caused by root rot, it would probably be 2 occurrences. (though it may not be covered in this case due to 'act of nature', depending on the policy).

The type of policy you have is supposed to have enough coverage to cover multiple items being damaged at once. The coverage was to low.

Dan

 

[Accelerated]

It is a single occurrence, if they both fell during the same event (storm). Traditional policies also speak to trees felled by the peril of wind in plural. Wind is the peril that is insured against, not "tree fall". Trees felled by wind are covered because wind is covered. If you attempt to apply the circular logic that you have displayed here, that being "I say each falling tree is an occurrence because the storm would not have damaged the boats but for the trees.", the loss would not be covered at all, as wind is the peril insured against. Read your policy. The only reference to trees made will generally be "tree(s) felled by the peril of windstorm or hail or weight of ice, snow or sleet; or a neighbor's tree felled by a peril insured against.

There may also be coverage for specific trees, plants and shrubs, but that coverage is really not relevant to this discussion.

If the situation were slightly different, you would probably argue it the other way. What if two trees were felled during a storm, one of which landed on your house and the other on a detached structure (garage, shed, whatever)? Would you think it appropriate to have two deductibles applied, since they were different trees, or would you say something to the effect of "those trees were felled by the same storm, thus this is a single occurrence"?

Can you imagine the reaction of an insured who had multiple trees hit their house, if they were told they were each separate occurrences? During the NC tornado event in April of 2011, I performed an inspection in which 11 trees were leaning on or had damaged a home with a $2,500 deductible "per occurrence". Would it have been better for me to hit them with a $27,500 total deductible, since each tree felled was a "separate occurrence", or did I do the right thing by considering it all a single occurrence loss? The storm would not have damaged the house if not for the trees falling, after all...

 

[risky business]

I tend to agree that the storm is the occurrence in this case and coverage should have been the total value of all boats stored.

 

[KenP]

Also curious as to why the coverage was not only enough for both boats, but evidently not enough for the more expensive one? (you said $9000,$3000 respectively. One boat is $9000 and you only had $7500 in coverage)