Most people assume that if a tree causes damage, their insurance will simply pay out.
Sometimes it does, but in certain cases, what happens next is less straightforward, and it often comes down to one question: Was this preventable?
What actually happens after a claim
If a tree causes damage (to your property or someone else’s), insurers don’t just write a cheque. Typically, they will appoint a loss adjuster, someone whose job is to investigate the claim and determine:
- The condition of the tree before it failed
- Whether there were visible warning signs
- Whether reasonable maintenance or inspection had taken place
- Whether the risk should have been identified earlier
In other words they’re looking to see if there’s a reason for them not to have to pay,
That doesn’t mean claims are unfairly rejected, but it does mean they expect that you have complied with the requirements of the insurance policy. And in these cases, evidence matters.
There are often a number of “grey areas” where insurance claims can fall apart
1) Known defects that weren’t addressed
If a tree showed signs of decay, deadwood, or structural weakness, and nothing was done about it, this can weaken a claim.
2) No evidence of inspection or management
You’re not expected to constantly manage trees, but if something goes wrong, the question may be raised “Was there any reasonable system of care in place?”
If matters go to court, this is a factor they focus on.
3) Trees near buildings or high-risk area
The closer a tree is to structures, roads, or people, the higher the expectation of inspection and management.
4) Previous warnings or complaints
If a neighbour, surveyor, or contractor has raised concerns, and nothing was done, that can be significant factor.
What the courts actually say. Some real cases
Incidents involving trees are common and consequently there’s plenty of case law regarding tree failures.
Situations where owners are not liable
In a case involving a council tree that fell and damaged property, the court found the council was not responsible because:
- They had a clear inspection system in place
- The tree had been assessed
- Their actions were considered reasonable
Although the case involved a council, the key takeaway is even if a tree fails, having a documented system of inspection can be a major factor protecting you. ([Forbes Solicitors][1])
In Parker v National Trust (2021), a visitor was injured by a falling branch.
The claim failed because:
- The Trust had a proper inspection regime.
- The courts accepted that trees are inherently unpredictable.
In this case, the court made it clear that you’re not expected to eliminate all risk,only to act reasonably. ([DWF][2])
Situations where owners are liable
In Cavanagh v Witley Parish Council (2018), a tree fell onto a road and caused serious injury. The council was found liable because:
- The tree was in a high-risk location
- Inspection intervals were not frequent enough
The key point being, the higher the risk, the higher the expected level of care. ([Weightmans][3])
In another case, a man received substantial compensation (around £300,000) after being struck by a falling tree where:
- The tree had undetected decay
- Proper inspection should have identified the issue
In this case, the failure to identify obvious defects can lead to significant liability. ([Fieldfisher][4])
In respect of subsidence and root damage, courts have also ruled that even without prior complaints:
- If damage is reasonably foreseeable
- And no action is taken,
liability can still arise. ([Mondaq][5])
So what does “reasonable care” actually look like?
In most cases, it’s generally not complicated:
- Occasional visual checks
- Professional inspection at sensible intervals (depending on risk)
- Acting on obvious issues
- Keeping basic records where appropriate
You don’t need to eliminate risk, rather you just need to show you didn’t ignore it.
A simple way to think about it
Most trees are perfectly safe. Problems usually arise when:
- A tree has been quietly deteriorating
- Or warning signs have gone unnoticed
And that’s typically what gets looked at after a claim.
Conclusion
Trees are rarely the problem. It’s usually a lack of awareness and lack of evidence that may scupper insurance claims and lead to problems.
General awareness and an informed approach is normally enough to stay on safe ground, both practically and from an insurance point of view.
If you ever want a second opinion on a specific tree or situation, it’s always easier to look at it early than deal with it after the fact.
NB: None of the above constitutes legal advice. It is provided for general information only.
[1]: https://www.forbessolicitors.co.uk/articles/forbes-at-trial-council-not-responsible-for-damage-caused-by-falling-tree-due-to-adequate-system-of-inspection?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Forbes at Trial – Council not responsible for damage caused by falling tree due to adequate system of inspection 25 Feb 2021 – Insurance Article | Forbes Solicitors”
[2]: https://dwfgroup.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2021/10/occupier-not-liable-for-injuries-sustained-by-falling-tree-branch?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Occupier not liable for injuries sustained by falling tree branch | DWF Group”
[3]: https://www.weightmans.com/media-centre/news/cavanagh-v-witley-parish-council-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Cavanagh v Witley Parish Council Court of Appeal | Weightmans”
[4]: https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/injury-claims/insights/force-majeure?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Tree Injury Case: Fieldfisher Challenges Force Majeure”
[5]: https://www.mondaq.com/uk/product-liability-safety/197102/tree-root-subsidence-spotlight-on-recent-case-law?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Tree Root Subsidence: Spotlight On Recent Case Law – Product Liability & Safety – United Kingdom”
