Advocates, sponsors push bill to stop insurers from requiring removal of healthy trees

Representatives and nonprofit groups told the committee that some homeowners have been told by insurers they must remove otherwise healthy, certified-arborist-approved trees to maintain coverage. "Healthy trees are not hazards," Melissa Brown of the Trees as a Public Good Network said. She urged the committee to pass H.1316 to prevent insurers from requiring removal of trees that a certified arborist has assessed as sound.

Representative Amy San Giolo and other municipal witnesses argued mature urban trees provide measurable public benefits including heat reduction, stormwater mitigation and air-quality benefits; the Trees as a Public Good Network provided figures for annual energy savings and stormwater diversion for a single mature tree as part of written materials. The bill would prohibit insurers from conditioning coverage on removal of trees that an arborist has certified are not hazards.

Industry response: Insurer witnesses warned that insurers cannot be forced to accept added risk without consideration of underwriting data. Christopher Stark and Patrick Treiber noted Massachusetts does not license arborists and that the principal arborist certification body allocates a small portion of its exam to risk assessment; they urged careful drafting so insurers' risk assessment expertise is considered.

Committee discussion: Members asked whether municipalities or associations of arborists could provide standard risk-assessment protocols and how the bill would interact with local tree-preservation ordinances. Witnesses pointed to Newton—s recent tree-preservation ordinance and said certified-arborist assessments are standard practice in some municipalities.

Next steps: The committee did not vote on H.1316 at the hearing; sponsors and advocates asked the committee for a favorable report and offered to provide technical drafting language and citations to municipal ordinances.