...how long to get a new roof?

Tacoma Surf Edition!!

 

That's what I've been wondering. Pretty sure they just cut and weld in the new one.

 

Talk about going green…even the tree limb is green!

Sorry OP, hope everything makes a speedy recovery.

 

Chop it 6” while they’re there

 

I remember the Convertible Dodge Dakota's from years ago.

 

Had a new roof put on my 2nd gen couple of years ago. It is basically glued with a few spot welds. apparently not that big a job. It was @ $4k

 

Your lawyer might be a moron…

https://www.indianabusinesslawyerblog.com/boundary-trees-owns-whos-responsible/

 

That was a redneck's dream right there.

 

From your own link:

“If the tree was healthy and fell because of a storm or act of God, A [tree owner] is not normally at fault and the loss will be borne by B as a normal incidence of property ownership.”

 

Yeah, whose the moron now.

 

Definitely doesn't fall on the trees owner. I had a large tree break in half had come down on my old Jeep and the neighbors garage in the ice storm we had in February 2014.
Our insurance companies covered the damages to properties and vehicles. We each got $500 from our insurance companies to have the fallen parts of the tree removal done. The neighbors gave me there $500 and I took care of the rest of the removal bill for both properties that was like $2000 total to remove the large tree. They didn't have to do that but it saved me some money and her much more than hiring her own people to remove the part on her yard.

Also the damage to the jeep was about 6500 too. Compressive insurance paid that part. Only $100 deductible.

 

“But because Indiana law obligates A to reasonably and periodically inspect his own property for dead or weak trees that pose a risk to others, A may be at fault and responsible for the harm.”

“A’s own insurance may cover him for this liability.”


“the extent of one’s liability for damaging another’s property will depend on whether the harm is temporary or permanent. If temporary, the reasonable cost of repair is normally recoverable.”

“The care required of the owner of a tree located close to a public roadway will vary depending on a variety of circumstances”

“Generally speaking, the more urbanized or populated the area, the greater the risk of harm from a falling tree and, therefore, the greater the care and attention care expected of the property owner.”


but hey man, if you wanna pay for it with your own insurance, knock yourself out…

 

Well, actually the hazard" is for anything that may be damaged when the yell "timber" is given, and the "pay" is for the insurance company premiums lol!

 

tru dat !

 

I can still remember seeing them new at the Dodge Dealerships.

 

paper chase

DarFartz does NOT show i bought my Taco at a steep discount at the dealer

simply not much diff than kelly/nada residual value

condition / maintenance are arbitrary / sunjective

plenty are buying armor all specials that are in Crap mechanical

no less CarFax is NOT protecting current buyers from inflated dealer prices

 

Just curious cause I'm no expert, but the actual roof doesn't look so bad that a good body shop couldn't fix it.

 

You’ve posted a link to a post that has little to no bearing on a tree falling from private property onto a truck parked on what appears to be a public road. It has to do with landowner disputes over trees at or near private property boundaries

It’s kinda funny though that the one part of the post that could perhaps be stretched to apply to this situation does not support your stance.

For what’s it’s worth, here in NC I had a large pine blown down by a hurricane onto my neighbor’s adjacent property, destroying his fence. His homeowner’s insurance covered the fence repair. The same rules apply here as in Indiana: the only way the land owner with the tree is responsible is if negligence can be proven.

 

Like I said, if you wanna pay, go right ahead.

‘A person who is injured or suffers property damage due to the fall of a tree rooted on the adjoining tract must prove that the owner of the adjoining tract was negligent in permitting a dangerous tree to remain standing and poised for damage. Traditionally at common law, courts treated trees as “a natural condition of [the] land” that relieved one landowner of liability when his or her tree caused “an invasion of another’s use and enjoyment” of another’s land.”1 Though as noted above this is largely the result when insurance is available, it is no longer a hard and fast rule regarding liability, and over the years courts have eliminated the distinction between trees that grow “naturally” and those planted by humans.’

Read more at: https://ncdisaster.ces.ncsu.edu/2018/09/comment-on-tree-fall-liability/

 

I’m gonna keep this short so this conversation can end and the thread stops derailing. You keep arguing that if a tree from one’s property falls on someone else’s property, that you as the owner of the property of the tree are always financially liable for any damage caused.

Then you keep posting up links and quotes that state that one is ONLY responsible, as the tree owner, if one was negligent and knew the tree was going to fall.

So, please, just stop.