Basic Damage Insurance: E

Following situation:
Our property directly borders the forest.
Last winter, a tree fell on our property and destroyed our fence. This tree probably fell due to a heavy snow load.

At this border, there are also taller trees which, in case of uprooting, could definitely damage our house.

This damage was reported to the city and the municipal insurance. However, after a few months, a rejection came because the traffic safety obligation was fulfilled. Accordingly, the insurance does not bear liability.

Of course, we also have a natural hazards & building insurance that covers snow pressure and, for example, storm damage.
We have now also received a rejection here, because the snow pressure damaged the tree, not the fence, and the storm was not sufficient.

Now comes our problem: Next time, our house could be hit, but so far we have not been able to find any insurance that would cover this so-called "force majeure."
Do you have any experience?

Why allegedly? You built there and knew from the start that there are tall trees and that a tree can definitely fall over. Even if the insurance would cover it when a tree falls on the house, at first it's damaged and you can't live there for a long time? It doesn't have to be snow, a tree can also die because of pests or similar. Sorry, but I think it's good that no insurance wants to pass this on to the general public. You should have chosen the building site better. It was probably quite cheap building land, right?

I actually only know it from experience with customers and a former neighbor. When a tree falls onto a house, usually only the tree is the problem. The branches often lie so gently on the roof that sometimes not a single tile breaks or only two or three pieces.

The gutter might also get a bend. The material for the repair is rather a joke. Every time it was like it was paid for by the insurance of the damaged house. They probably have an agreement among themselves or something, I have no idea. Sounds strange but that's how it is.

Only if the tree is already dead for a long time, meaning dry branches. Then they sometimes crash through a wooden ceiling a floor below. I have also seen it myself before, the branches hung down into the living room. I usually say to customers: before you report damage, talk to your insurance agent first, that can be worth gold. Or like here a piece of the fence

Why allegedly? You built there and knew from the start that there are tall trees there and that a tree can certainly fall over. Even if the insurance would cover it when a tree falls on the house, it’s damaged at first and you can’t live there for a long time? It doesn’t have to be snow either, a tree can also die because of pests or similar. Sorry, but I think it’s good that no insurance wants to shift that onto the general public. You should have chosen the building plot better. It was certainly quite cheap building land, right?

Well, I don’t find your post particularly nice. The city (which owns the forest) has the duty to ensure that the trees are safe. But if one does fall on the house, it is legitimate to know which insurance pays for that. That’s why you take out insurance – to insure a risk. Why shouldn’t there be such a thing. In our case (similar) my insurance explained to me that if the city’s liability insurance doesn’t pay, then our building insurance does. I hope I never have to test that.

It's exactly like that. Your building insurance pays. If they believe someone might be "at fault" for the accident, e.g. due to lack of duty to secure or negligence, then they recover the money from there or from their/their liability insurance.
GD