i dont see why insurance companies should pay out a cent for trees that, deemed by an arborist, had obvious signs that failure was likely. If you drove your car around with bald tyres, no brakes, broken windscreen, speeding, drunk, unlicensed etc. do ya think they'd pay up when you crash ya car. Yet the equivilant happens with trees and they keep paying.
Ignorance should be no excuse
I vote for compulsory annual arborist inspections for all properties surrounded by trees if they wish to maintain their cover.
