No Insurance Coverage to Remove Damaged Tree
In Womick v. West Bend Mutual Insurance, John Womick sustained damage to several of its trees due to a storm that passed through the area. Womick alleged that strong winds broke several tree limbs, but that these broken limbs were still connected to the trees and were left hanging. Womick further alleged that because children play near the area, it was necessary to remove the damaged trees and other debris in order to make his property safe. Expenses to cut down the damaged branches, clean up the area, and remove the cut branches and other debris cost the plaintiff $23,247.18. His property was insured by West Bend Mutual Insurance. The insurer paid the insured $1,000 which is all it claims that Womick was entitled to under the terms of the policy. Womick filed a complaint against the insurer seeking a declaration that the terms of the policy are contradictory and ambiguous and that the ambiguity should be resolved against the insurer, as the drafter of the policy.
The issue before the court was whether the terms of the policy were ambiguous and would provide coverage for the entire amount of $23,247.18 expended by the insured in order to remove the allegedly hazardous, partially felled tree branches from his property.
Covered property, as stated in section I of the property coverages portion of the policy, includes the dwelling (“paragraph A”), other structures (“paragraph B”), and personal property (“paragraph C”). The parties do not contest that the plaintiff’s house is considered the “dwelling.” Paragraph A further states that although the dwelling is covered under the policy, the policy does not cover “land, including land on which the dwelling is located.” Paragraph E under that same section, which lists the additional coverages, states that the insurer will pay the insured’s reasonable expenses for the removal of “[d]ebris of covered property.” Thus, a plain reading of this provision reveals that only debris from the dwelling itself, which would be Womick’s house, would be covered in this instance. Paragraph E of the policy does, provide partial coverage for felled trees, up to a $1,000 limit. The record shows that the insurer already paid the insured the $1,000 for his expenses to remove felled trees from his property. The policy may not specifically define the term “debris”, but it can be clearly determined that only reasonable expenses incurred from removing debris from covered property are reimbursable. It also can be clearly determined that debris from trees or felled trees is not covered property as stated in the policy’s “Property Coverages” section. Therefore, the court found no ambiguity, nor did the court find any ambiguity created by the policy’s lack of a “felled tree” definition, especially considering that Womick already received the maximum amount of reimbursement allowed under the policy for his expenses incurred from removing felled trees from his property.
The court held that no ambiguity existed in the insurance policy issued to the insured and that the insured’s costs to remove damaged tree debris from his property were not covered under the terms of the policy.
Womick v. West Bend Mutual Insurance, 2013 WL 5407209 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.)). (This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).)
