Law Suit - injured by tree being cut down

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

nope I actually have an insurance qualificationl

Without covering liability insurance? Must be easier get these days

gimli2112

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Without covering liability insurance? Must be easier get these days

yup sure is, some of the questions in the exams were wrong

Iodine1

Iodine1 wrote: »

As far as I can see the man was not injured by the chainsaw. So it was not a chainsaw accident.

I wonder. While not hurt directly by the chainsaw a tree will be cut a lot faster than if cut by a saw or hatchet, so it may not be so clear cut (pun not intended).

Lenar3556

On the facts provided, I would believe the farmers potential liability to be tenuous as best, yet the full story is not known.

However if he were to be found to have at least some liability, I would have every expectation that a typical farm policy would extend cover to defence and settlement costs in these circumstances.

The standard FBD ‘multi peril’ farm policy doesn’t mention chainsaws - nor would I have expected it to - chainsaws are a staple machine on most farms. A policy endorsed with too many exclusions of that nature simply wouldn’t sell.

wildwillow

mojesius wrote: »

Sorry to hijack the thread but I have a similar question. We are due to move into a new home and the previous owner told us that neighbours asked if they could cut down a tree on our land that's blocking their view. It's not a particularly nice tree so we are happy to oblige once we speak with them.

However, it's sounds like we could be liable if anything goes wrong - any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks

The OP's story should be a lesson for you. Do not allow anyone without training and their own insurance do any work on your premises. If the tree is not bothering you, let it be.
If they really want to remove it, your terms are that a qualified and insured person deals with it.

Eggs For Dinner

Lenar3556 wrote: »

On the facts provided, I would believe the farmers potential liability to be tenuous as best, yet the full story is not known.

However if he were to be found to have at least some liability, I would have every expectation that a typical farm policy would extend cover to defence and settlement costs in these circumstances.

The standard FBD ‘multi peril’ farm policy doesn’t mention chainsaws - nor would I have expected it to - chainsaws are a staple machine on most farms. A policy endorsed with too many exclusions of that nature simply wouldn’t sell.

It's a standard farming activity, but it's reasonable for an insurer to include a condition that the work be carried out by trained and qualified persons. It is standard practice to include similar conditions for other trades. Scaffolding, spray painting, working at height, burning of waste etc. Policy wording (including schedule) is king

Esel

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Copy/paste wall of text

Why the hell didn't you just post a link? No fun scrolling past your 'post'.

Esel

Esel wrote: »

Why the hell didn't you just post a link? No fun scrolling past your 'post'.

There was commentary in it as well. Some of us appreciated it

hullaballoo

Moderator: bobbyy gee, please do not post copy pasta from google and or other sites. We all have access to google. Not appropriately attributing sources is against the forum charter also.

Thanks.