Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Claims And Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada homeowner seeks council help after contractorwork and insurance deny claim
Summary
Homeowner Kim Upton told council that a pine tree toppled onto his house after contractors removed a large tap root during a city street replacement project; the city's insurer denied his claim and the council voted to table reconsideration pending further investigation.
Homeowner Kim Upton asked the Nevada City Council to reconsider a denied insurance claim after a tree on his property toppled onto his house following recent street work. Upton said contractors removed a large tap root during curb and street replacement; months later a windstorm knocked the tree onto his house, causing about $2,800 in damage.
Why it matters: The property owner contends contractor work in the public right of way weakened the tree and that the city and contractor bear responsibility. City staff and the city insurance pool (ICAP) declined coverage, and Upton asked the council to revisit the denial and ask the contractor to file incident reports and clarify liability.
Upton told the council he did not authorize root removal and that “I had absolutely nothing to do with this whole matter,” adding the root ball was “very well exposed” when the tree fell. Council members questioned whether the contractor had filed an incident report with the insurer; staff said they did not believe one had been filed and said they would check with the city insurance representative and contact the contractor (Construct) for an explanation.
Council members and residents who spoke at the meeting urged staff to press the contractor for its incident report and for ICAP to provide a written rationale for denial. Councilor Jason Sampson said contractors working for the city should have reported the incident to their insurer so the claim could be evaluated; Sampson asked staff to pursue follow-up. City staff recommended gathering additional documentation and legal advice before deciding whether to make any payment, noting possible immunity and precedent concerns.
Action taken: The council voted to table the matter to the next meeting and directed staff to request documentation from the contractor and the insurer, and to prepare a legal memo on precedent and indemnity issues so councilors can decide whether to pursue payment or other remedies.
Ending: The council asked that the contractor be invited to the next meeting or supply a written statement and that the city attorney or insurance representative prepare analysis of liability, precedent and potential exposure.
