Loss Value Statement

[TheTreeSpyder]

i had to submit a statement of loss value for a buddy, and came up with this. Actually he is a tree mentor, so the numerical figures are his. i was wondering what y'all thought of it as a basic form, and if everything was included that would be pertinent.:


Removal of 3 Lightning struck, devastated oaks near residence
$3800.00

Approximate Loss Value of Oaks:
I find the oaks to have been strategically placed in yard, perhaps more accurately the home valued and constructed to maximize their utility and presence. They seem to be quite fair specimens of the Live Oak genre, achieving 35”, 37” & 58” dbh (Diameter at Breast Height). Their health and structure previous to this seems to have been very positive. It would take approximately 35+ years of growth to replace them; but quite frankly their peculiar growth pattern and stature would be hard to replace. I approximate their fair replacement value @ $45,000 total. Due to these conditions.

 

[treeclimber165]

It seems good as far as you went. But Insurance companies will probably need some documentation to fill in the blank space between 35", 37", and 58" DBH and $45,000 total value . About the only way I could think of to document this is showing home sales values for comperable homes with massive oak canopies vs. homes without trees.

Credentials (ISA cert. #, occupational license #, experience, degrees, etc.) would also need to be listed to give credence to your opinions.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

You need to cite the formula you used and wich revision of the Guide.

 

[Toddppm]

I've never seen one before but would think they are looking for an expert opinion and not a description. I would try to leave out the word devastated and use damaged. Would take out the peculiar too, maybe structurally superior or something? I don't know , just the facts man! If they think you're trying to fluff it up and make it glossy they'll fight it.
Don't know how often Jay Banks checks this side of the forum but he's a consultant and has probably done many like this?

 

[TREETX]

The way they usually fight claims like this is to apply the formula to all of the trees on the property and see what the value is. Odd that many times when you do that, you find a $200,000 property with 4 million in trees. Doesn't add up - won't hold up. The biggest guns in valuation cases are usually not on the tree owner's side.

They are bad situations, the consultant makes money, the lawyer makes money, but 90% of the time any money won does not get put into the landscape.

I have people contact me about seeking damages. I usually paint a realistic picture. I will make money, the lawyer will make money, and you will foot the bill. At best, you will win and have enough money to pay us. They have always been petty claims. Never herbice drift or going after DEEP pockets.

 

[Nickrosis]

The overvaluations usually stem from people far over-estimating the location and condition numbers. People typically overvalue these, in my opinion. If you get huge numbers like that, you should re-evaluate and re-calculate.

Nickrosis

 

[geofore]

loss value

With trees that size to be replaced are you looking at what it would cost to replace the trees with younger trees about 25 years old? 8K-12K each, at that it will take more than 35 years to reach the size you speak of. Trees are not like the lawn and grow back each week to be mowwed. When you are asked,"Can you trim this to look like a tree again?" You have to explain it will take X# of years to look the way they want it to look after the trim, this case replacement. The ins. co. looks at it over time and slides the scale to match,not an easy sale.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

there are certain formulas for figuring loss of amenity, depreciation, then if you are installing large trees, the cost of long term care to establish.

Russ Carlsons knothole has an entire forum dedicated to valuation. Scott Cullen has several disertations on the subject imbeded there in.

http://tree-tech.com/board/?topic=topic1