A San Carlos family says their home insurance dropped them without warning because of problems with the 500-year-old oak tree on their property. Now they’re fighting back and hoping to get their insurance back.
Among all the plants that Liz Heieck-Toms and her husband Will proudly tend in their garden in San Carlos is an ancient white oak tree.
“We really consider ourselves custodians of this tree,” said Liz Heieck-Toms.
“We believe it is about 480 years old,” added Will Heieck Toms.
Over the course of the 32 years they lived there, they worked closely with a tree expert to care for the tree.
“When we got here, the tree’s canopy was literally over the roof of the house,” he said. “As you can see, we probably took out 40 to 50 percent of this tree.”
But the natural beauty that is at the heart of their garden is now at the heart of an insurance nightmare.
“It was a normal day. My realtor sent me an email saying I had been notified by Safeco that I was receiving a notice of termination because the tree canopy was hanging over your house and debris on your roof, as confirmed by aerial photography, had somehow been eaten away,” said Will Heieck-Toms.
He said they have been customers of Safeco, a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual, for 20 years. They received no notice of an aerial inspection or any photos to support the decision, nor were they ever warned that the alleged condition of their tree put their home insurance at risk.
“I’m just disheartened and frustrated by the lack of civility and understanding from a company for something that’s almost 500 years old,” Will said. “Come and knock on my door. I’m more than willing to sit down with the company and have a conversation. If they want that right, it’s their right and I appreciate that right. I just don’t appreciate it being so one-sided.”
A company spokesperson issued a statement to CBS News Bay Area that reads in part:
“While we cannot comment on individual clients, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the condition of a property. Advances in satellite imaging are helpful in identifying problems that we – and homeowners – may not otherwise know exist.”
Carmen Belber, executive director of the nonprofit consumer watchdog, said it is not the first time and will not be the last that she has heard of an insurance company cutting off a customer because of aerial surveillance.
“We’re seeing exponential growth in the use of aerial photography and other technologies, all owned by third parties that consumers have little access to, to price and make home insurance purchasing decisions,” she said. “We’re very concerned about the increasing use of these technologies because they’re not transparent. We’re pushing in Sacramento to make this information more accessible to consumers.”
Belber does not dispute that insurance companies have an important right to inspect a customer’s property, but she says it is imperative that they make their judgments based on accurate information.
“While the insurance company has a right to know the condition of your property, they also have a duty to get it right,” she said. “It’s really not fair that insurance companies use a specific point in time to make decisions that really affect a homeowner’s financial future.”
Her advice to homeowners who find themselves in such a situation is to request the photos on which the insurer’s decision is based.
“When it happens, they need to act quickly. Don’t assume it’s going to be easy to quickly get a new policy with another company. Don’t just take that decision at face value. Go back to the home insurance company, ask where they got their information, correct them if they’re wrong — which is common — and ask them if there’s anything you can do to keep your policy,” Belber said. “Find out what they were basing their decision on because sometimes we hear that an insurance company will change their decision when they get accurate information.”
The Toms have requested the pictures but have not received a response from their insurer at the time of this article.
“We will do everything in our power to get someone to raise awareness of this issue,” said Will Heieck-Toms.
“Not just for us,” his wife added.
“To anyone who has the same problem as us,” he said, “I’m going to go to the California state commissioner, I’m going to go to the city of San Carlos, our arborist gave me the name of the director of the association of arborists across the country.”
In the meantime, Will said finding a new insurer was no easy task, even though he doesn’t live in a flood or fire zone. He received an offer from a company he had never heard of before and that didn’t appeal to him.
“They offered insurance with half the coverage for almost three times the price,” he said.
There is still the FAIR plan, California’s insurer of last resort. But Belber said that really is the last resort.
“The FAIR plan comes with limited benefits and very high costs, so this could be a major financial blow to homeowners as well,” she said.
The Toms have until December to find a new way forward.
“I feel like insurance companies are just using things like this as an excuse because they don’t want to insure homes in California because of all the fires and so on,” said Liz Heieck-Toms.
“Worst-case scenario, we’re probably going to have to cut that tree down for over $40,000,” said Will Heick-Toms. “I’m asking the insurance industry not to think so black and white. Consider the legacy of the trees and the environment and how they’re impacting that and maybe overdo it a little bit before making these decisions that I would call bureaucratic.”
