[bimbushy]

My neighbor says my 40 yr pine tree buckled his drive way and wants me to pay for it. I've lived there 15 yr he's lived there 7.my house is 27 yr old his is much newer.do I have to pay for this?

[ScottGem]

Probably not. Tree roots grow. Unless you were made aware that the roots might be causing damage and you did nothing, then you are not responsible. However, the amount of time you lived there and the age of the dwelling has no bearing.

What I would do is contact your home insurance provider and let them know he may be making a claim. See what your coverage is and whether, he has a case.

[joypulv]

I agree, probably not.
Insurers have their own policies. States have some laws. Counties, cities, and towns may have local ordinances. Yet there is still so much left to question (such as in your case, was it really roots that caused his driveway to buckle, how close is the tree to the border and how close is his driveway, could you have been expected to have knowledge of pine tree roots, and on and on), that courts generally won't consider this issue. It might boil down to the discretion of a particular judge, if it goes to Small Claims.

[smoothy]

Not to mention a cheap... poorly made driveway could be highly susceptible to anything cracking it... I.E. improper compacted gravel base... concrete poured too thin, or of the wrong type and without sufficient mesh and rebar reinforcement.

[smearcase]

The laws and opinions that I can find vary a great amount, and of course from state to state. If the same philosophy is used and applied to roots as is usually applied to overhanging branches, a property owner can remove branches from a neighbor's tree that threaten his own roof for example, so the neighbor could remove a root that threatens his driveway (if he knew about it soon enough which he probably wouldn't). It could be argued that the guy should have protected his own property from damage from the tree roots.

And there is no guarantee that repairing the damage from one root would solve the problem for very long. Another episode could occur relatively soon after the first. There is also no guarantee as to how the ruling would come down in small claims court, unless there is some very specific law in LA. The best outcome would be that your insurance would pay to repair the damage, and if I were the insurance co. I would make removal of the tree and grinding of roots within certain limits part of the package. Get rid of this hassle and get on with life.

And assuming that all that could be ironed out (tree removed, roots ground out to remove future threat, and driveway patched), next he could demand an entire resurfacing of his driveway because the patch destroyed the appearance.

I sure hope that your insurance will pay for some remedy to this because if not, you have a tiger by the tail. And to add insult to injury, is the tree a hazard to either or both houses if it were to fall? If your insurance won't help, consult an attorney(s) and get some expert opinions based on Louisiana law. It is unlikely that this problem hasn't been ruled on previously.
The cost to grind out the root and do minimal patching (one days work with good coordination) might be as little as (maybe?) $1,500 or so. But taking on the responsibility for what happens with future eruptions, and the "I ain't settling for a patched driveway" syndrome etc- is another story entirely. Good luck.

[ScottGem]

I just want to clarify what smearcase is saying. I don't disagree with any of it. And if your neighbor decides to go to court over it, it could represent a major hassle to you, unless your insurance covers your liability. Which is why you need to talk to them ASAP. My guess here is that he won't win, but having to go to court over it will be a hassle.

[bimbushy]

I thank you for your response. I talked to him yesterday he said the slab was pushed up when he bought the house but now it has cracked. I let my insurance know about the situation.Since the problem was the at the time of purchuse this should have been addressed then am I wrong?

[ScottGem]

Agreed, if he noticed the issue at the time of purchase and did not say anything, then the onus is even more on him. It wasn't very bright of him to tell you that (I hope there were witnesses) because it makes his position less tenable.

What did you insurance carrier or agent tell you?

[ma0641]

Your insurance company will only respond to a negligent act committed by you or other named insured. Where is your negligence?

[ScottGem]

Your insurance company will only respond to a negligent act committed by you or other named insured. Where is your negligence?

Not necessarily. The insurer should respond if the policy covers liability in this case.

[AK lawyer]

Not necessarily. The insurer should respond if the policy covers liability in this case.

You and ma0641 are really saying the same thing.

If the neighbor sues OP, OP's homeowner's insurance carrier will be required to pay for an attorney to represent OP. The neighbor might claim negligence (or, I suppose, trespass, which in most places is a "strict liability" tort). If the court finds that OP is liable, the insurance policy will cover the liability (up to the policy limits), assuming no applicable exclusion.