Large pruning cut for a mature Oak tree

[SpeedySloth]

Hi Yall,
I have a bit of a conundrum on my hands. I recently talked to a prospective client about an oak branch that is hanging over his house. He said that his homeowners insurance wanted to drop him unless he removed it from over his house. The problem is there are no significant secondary branches that sit behind the point which I would have to cut, and the branch is probably 12 to 18 inches where it attaches to the trunk.
I'm left with 3 options, none of which are great.
1) I make a 4 to 5 inch heading cut just behind where the branch overhangs the roof. There are several 1 inch watersprouts around this area which may be large enough to develop into branches, but this would require several future pruning appointments to train the branch into a proper form. The branch may not recover from the required pruning however and I would be leaving this guy with a low dead branch that's about 30 feet long. I think this would be the least attractive option.
2) There is an elbow on this branch about 3 feet out where the trunk suddenly goes from 14" diameter to about 8. It looks like there had been some aggressive cuts made to this lead previously and the overhanging branch was the only one that was left on this lead. There appear to be unclosed pruning wounds on this elbow and I strongly suspect that there is decay in the heartwood. I could cut the branch back to this point and come back in a couple years to remove the stub. My thought is that if I made a serious wound far enough away from the trunk it would buy the tree some time to wall off from that.
3) I cut the lead as close to the trunk as possible, or a few inches out.

The tree is a very mature willow oak (quercus phellos) in an older residential neighborhood, it also is on the neighbors property if that helps.

 

[Del_]

#1 is the best option, IMO.

 

[ClimberBusinessman]

Hard to say without seeing photos. Ideally, no collar cuts (and definitely no flush-cuts) near the trunk that are larger than 6" in diameter, although you can use your own judgement on that one, but beware rot might set in on some species. One option is cut it 2-3' out. It would leave an ugly stub, but it might sprout and regrow or just die, and might give the tree additional time to compartmentalize before decay sets in; although data is unclear on whether trees would seal over better if you made a closer cut. I'd go moderately aggressive so that the insurance company is happy. Otherwise, the homeowner might call you back and it'll cost him more to trim more, or the tree will need to be removed. How close to the foundation is this tree? You might want to consider removing it on that basis alone, if the tree is too close.

 

[ATH]

Option 4...he beats the insurance company to the punch and drops them before they drop him.

I don't get it - had a friend telling me the same thing. Insurance said they'd drop him if he didn't have all branches above roof removed. I had him ask if he had a letter from BCMA/TRAQ qualified arborist stating that the probability of failure is low. They said no. So he spent a big chunk of change (not sure, but guessing a couple thousand dollars) to have it cut back. More than I was willing to do to the tree - make it MORE dangerous than it was before.

My only thought was: "he must really love his insurance company...hope he realizes its not mutual" (pun intended). There are plenty of other options out there and they aren't drastically different. Certainly less than the cost to prune the tree.

 

[ClimberBusinessman]

Option 4...he beats the insurance company to the punch and drops them before they drop him.

I don't get it - had a friend telling me the same thing. Insurance said they'd drop him if he didn't have all branches above roof removed. I had him ask if he had a letter from BCMA/TRAQ qualified arborist stating that the probability of failure is low. They said no. So he spent a big chunk of change (not sure, but guessing a couple thousand dollars) to have it cut back. More than I was willing to do to the tree - make it MORE dangerous than it was before.

My only thought was: "he must really love his insurance company...hope he realizes its not mutual" (pun intended). There are plenty of other options out there and they aren't drastically different. Certainly less than the cost to prune the tree.

Not a good idea. If the insurance company says that a tree should be removed or trimmed, it definitely should go. I see lots of dead trees near houses and insurance is presumably doing nothing about it, so I don't think insurance is overly proactive about that in general. Right now, it's a very tough insurance market, and it's tough finding insurance carriers to write policies. It's best to do what you can to stick with your current insurance company. Also, any new insurance company (at least outside of excess and surplus lines carriers) will likely want to do an inspection, and will likely raise the same issues. So by not properly maintaining or removing the tree, you'll bring a lot of trouble on yourself, jeporadize your home in a storm, and still might have to trim or remove it anyways, if the new insurer insists on it.

 

[ATH]

None of that is quite so absolutely true...

1) plenty of insurance estimators have NO idea about trees. For example...worked with a client who was told no branches over the roof. There were some very small, less than 1" diameter, branches. Maybe would have taken off a gutter (not likely reaching deductable). OK - we can do that. Did they say anything about the large leaning hollow tree in the front? Nope. See example 2 above. That tree was unlikely to fail.
2) Are you in FL or CA? Homeowners insurance is easy to come by in most places...not prone to massive natural disaster or too many trial attorneys. We just switched and had 3 quotes from 2 agents in less than an hour.

Did the OP say the tree was dead? That would change things for sure, but doesn't sound like it is. Certainly worth having an arborist (qualified in risk assessment) evaluate the tree. Reasonable insurance companies will accept those reports.

 

[AllAboutTreesUT]

None of that is quite so absolutely true...

1) plenty of insurance estimators have NO idea about trees. For example...worked with a client who was told no branches over the roof. There were some very small, less than 1" diameter, branches. Maybe would have taken off a gutter (not likely reaching deductable). OK - we can do that. Did they say anything about the large leaning hollow tree in the front? Nope. See example 2 above. That tree was unlikely to fail.
2) Are you in FL or CA? Homeowners insurance is easy to come by in most places...not prone to massive natural disaster or too many trial attorneys. We just switched and had 3 quotes from 2 agents in less than an hour.

Did the OP say the tree was dead? That would change things for sure, but doesn't sound like it is. Certainly worth having an arborist (qualified in risk assessment) evaluate the tree. Reasonable insurance companies will accept those reports.

Agree. Option 1 should be to contest the insurance company and their uneducated opinions. TRAQ certified or RCA report would be my first recommendation, as well. It's sad homeowners get bullied by these companies that don't even do their due diligence using a qualified person.

 

[BrentStir]

Hi Speedy

A pic would help a lot. Option 1 or 2 is possible, but writing a report about the safety of the limb for the client and the insurance company might also make a big difference. Some insurance companies have had to pay out big bucks for a limb or tree crashing on a roof. They are being ultra cautious. Liability for the neighbour’s insurance stops at the fence line, so if the overhanging limb hits the client’s roof it is his insurance company that pays.

 

[Mad Professor]

 

[ClimberBusinessman]

Agree. Option 1 should be to contest the insurance company and their uneducated opinions. TRAQ certified or RCA report would be my first recommendation, as well. It's sad homeowners get bullied by these companies that don't even do their due diligence using a qualified person.

You can contest it all you want, but in the end, an insurer has to believe the TRAQ or RCA expert. Right now, in many markets, insurers have way lower risk appetites and in some cases are getting rid of customers who never have had any claims, just because the insurer has had huge losses and they realize they can't take on as much risk currently as they originally thought they could. In some states out West, like California, the insurers are leaving the state, because California won't let them charge enough money to cover all the risk involved. A tree on a house can easily be a $5,000 to $30,000 claim just to remove the tree, especially if a crane is involved. This isn't including the insurer's cost to repair the house, and pay for alternative housing for the person whose house was destroyed. It seems the insurers are becoming a bit more (understandably) risk-avoidant.

 

[alanbaker]

I wish

Hi Speedy

A pic would help a lot. Option 1 or 2 is possible, but writing a report about the safety of the limb for the client and the insurance company might also make a big difference. Some insurance companies have had to pay out big bucks for a limb or tree crashing on a roof. They are being ultra cautious. Liability for the neighbour’s insurance stops at the fence line, so if the overhanging limb hits the client’s roof it is his insurance company that pays.

I wish insurance companies would split the cost with the homeowners of removing hazard limbs or trees near a house. Every one wins. If tree or branch hits the house the insurance company pays to remove the branch and repair the house.

A few years back a ice storm littered the roof with pine branches. As I was cleaning them off, one was sticking straight up - not a good look. I pulled the branch out, cut a square out of the plywood, went into the attic, screwed a larger piece to cover the hole, cut another to fill the hole and being the asphalt shingles were all frozen together, I cut 3 aluminum shingles and I could pound then up under the asphalt shingles. All fixed before the lovely other half came home.
She wanted to file a claim, I asked why its fixed and didn't cost any thing but a bit of frostbite and we have a $500 deductible, it won't even come to that. Anyway the adjuster came out and I showed him the pictures, remember it was all fixed and cleaned up. Well a couple weeks later, she got a check for over $4100. I said do not cash it, if we ever a real issue they cancel the insurance.
The itemize claim listed a whole square of new shingles, (it would taken about six shingles) labor, cleanup and disposal of all the branches, which I just drag to the woods.
I know other folks that have had much more legitimate claims get dick around or short changed. Asked a couple contractors what they would have charged and ranged between $400 and $600