Homeowner Insurance Denied for Intentional Tree Damage: Key Arborist Law Case

Arborist LawTree Law
Written By ed resetar

Summary of Albert v. Mid-Century Insurance: A Landmark Tree Damage Coverage Case

In a significant arborist law ruling, a California Court of Appeal upheld the denial of insurance coverage for alleged intentional tree damage. This case highlights critical issues regarding property boundaries, tree trimming rights, and homeowners insurance coverage limitations.

Case Background: Property Dispute Leads to Tree Damage Claim

Shelly Albert and Henri Baccouche owned adjacent properties in Los Angeles County, both subject to a shared roadway easement providing access to a public road. The dispute began in 2011 when Baccouche filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Albert.

Legal Claims in the Tree Damage Lawsuit

Baccouche's lawsuit alleged that Albert:

  • Constructed a fence encroaching on the roadway easement.

  • Enclosed approximately 650 square feet of Baccouche's property.

  • Excessively pruned six olive trees located on his property.

  • Sought treble damages for tree-related losses under California Civil Code Section 3346 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 733.

Insurance Coverage Dispute: Why Mid-Century Denied the Claim

When Albert submitted the claim to Mid-Century Insurance Company, her homeowner's insurance provider denied coverage on significant grounds:

  • The policy only covered "occurrences" defined as accidents.

  • The policy specifically excluded coverage for "intentional acts."

  • The alleged tree damage resulted from non-accidental conduct.

Court Findings on the Tree Damage Insurance Claim

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Mid-Century Insurance, noting:

  • Albert claimed her tree trimmers exceeded her instructions, but provided no supporting evidence.

  • Baccouche's lawsuit contained no allegations about the tree trimmers exceeding instructions.

  • Albert's recorded statement to her insurer failed to mention any miscommunication with tree service personnel.

  • Albert's declaration filed during summary judgment proceedings was silent regarding instructions to the tree service company.

Legal Implications for Property Owners and Tree Disputes

This case establishes an important precedent for property owners regarding:

  • Tree trimming liability across property boundaries.

  • Insurance coverage limitations for intentional property damage.

  • The importance of proper documentation when hiring tree service companies.

  • Legal risks associated with boundary disputes involving vegetation.

Protecting Yourself in Tree-Related Property Disputes

Property owners should take proactive steps to avoid similar situations by obtaining property surveys, maintaining clear communication with contractors, and understanding insurance policy limitations regarding intentional acts and property disputes.

Contact us today at (213) 293-9401 or derek@dsimpsonlegal.com to schedule a free consultation and take the first step toward taking precautions and covering yourself.

ed resetar