Trees in relation to construction
2nd September 2011Woodman, Spare that Tree
25th November 2011‘Cracking Up’ Trees and Subsidence, ICF Chartered Forester Magazine, Adam Winson
An article on insurance claims leading to trees being removed
Below is a short opinion piece I wrote for Chartered Forester Magazine – the membership magazine of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, the professional body for foresters and arboriculturists – my view is based on my work as an arboricultural consultant undertaking tree surveys in relation to property damage:
Anyone who attended this years ICF conference can be under no doubt as to the major benefits urban trees provide. However, as some of the post-conference debate showed, urban trees implicated in subsidence damage are a potent source of arguments.
We know trees can cause clay soils to shrink, leading to property damage. Insurers are legally bound to resolve the problems from tree related subsidence using the least expensive method available; their consensus seems to be that tree removal is, in most cases, the only real remedy. Legally, if trees under the control of a Local Authority (LA) are a material cause of subsidence damage, they are liable for recovery costs, and the reluctance of many LAs to allow the removal of offending trees, even when confronted with the correct level of evidence, has led to some eye watering sums.
Many LA tree officers seem to view themselves as being embroiled in a virtuous battle against underhand insurers, who would, if allowed, see our urban landscape devoid of trees. Conversely, the insurers and their associates see themselves struggling to impart scientific and legal fact to deluded tree huggers. Perhaps a too simplistic characterisation; but this does highlight the polarized views held by many. How did it come to this?
Following the Great Fire of London in 1666, companies were created to insure buildings; only after the drought of 1976 did trees close to buildings become a major insurance issue; yet it is now the single largest tree-related insurance problem in the country. This sounds worrying, but in most cases the damage is not a serious structural issue; it’s largely cosmetic, cracks on the wall, which has led many to question the basic premise that cosmetic damage to properties should be an actionable event.
The term “ex post moral hazard” describes how behaviour changes in reaction to a negative event, once insurance is provided to cover the costs. Because subsidence cover is now a standard component of UK household insurance policies, after a subsidence event occurs, householders are more likely to ask insurers to undertake remedial action. It’s a very British affair; in other nations, in general, householders cover the costs of repair themselves, with the obvious result that tolerance of cracks is much higher. I’ve met many a householder lamenting ever having made that first call to their insurers, after noticing a hairline crack on the wall… by then the wheels are in motion; trial pits are being dug, legal teams are licking their lips and chainsaws and chippers are being fuelled.
In relative terms, loss of our urban trees resulting from subsidence claims is still very low, but numbers of claims are increasing and with the effect of climate change, likely to increase further, at a time when the beneficial effects of trees in ameliorating harsh urban microclimates will be needed most. In such a scenario, when the nuisance is only cosmetic damage, irrespective of the science and the law being unequivocal, then the LA’s reluctance to allow the removal of offending trees will have the moral high ground. History, from a blistering barren urban landscape, would not look back kindly on a society that allowed this to happen.
Adam
I'm a Chartered Arboriculturist at AWA Tree Consultants Ltd. As well as detailing our recent tree survey and arboricultural consultant work, this blog includes wide ranging arboricultural musings, including tree facts, opinion and anecdotes on trees in human culture.
