Burned, But Not Dead, Trees Covered?

We have an HO3 4-91 policy. The loss is a brush fire in the insured's yard. They had damage to trees, shrubs, and bushes. We have two questions. If a tree is burned and charred but not dead, is this a loss to the tree and do we owe to replace the tree? Secondly, this is a large lot with lots of small plants or bushes growing naturally and not “landscaped”. Are these bushes covered under this coverage?

California Subscriber

You raise a good question. Apparently a tree that has been burned does not necessarily die; if the bark has just been charred then there's a good chance the tree will survive. In your situation you need a tree expert to look at the trees and determine which will live and which won't. While destructive, fire actually helps many forests regenerate and fosters new growth.

If the expert determines that the trees won't survive then we'd call that a loss and coverage should be provided for those trees and bushes. It doesn't matter whether or not the trees and bushes are professionally landscaped; the policy covers any trees and bushes, and trees and bushes that are part of the property are covered.

 

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis