“I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree.”
Joyce Kilmer wrote those words more than a century ago. Today, depending on who is looking, that same tree might be seen very differently.
A homeowner may see beauty, shade, privacy, and increased property value. A community may see environmental benefits, neighborhood character, and a critical component of its canopy goals. An arborist may see condition, structure, risk, and a range of management options. And increasingly, insurance companies may see only the possibility of future claims, prompting requests for pruning or removal, with homeowners facing the possibility of non-renewal if those concerns are not addressed.
That’s why insurance has found its way into our conversations about tree care, urban forestry, and public policy.
Insurance topics are not new to the tree care industry. For decades, tree care companies have worked closely with insurers on issues like worker safety, risk management, claims prevention, fleet operations, and reducing workplace injuries. Helping companies operate safely and responsibly has always been a priority for TCIA and our members.
What’s changing now is the focus. Historically, most insurance conversations involving our industry centered on tree care companies and the work they perform. Today, we’re seeing more conversations centered on the trees themselves.
As insurers seek to manage risk and respond to changing market conditions, trees are becoming part of underwriting, renewal, and property-risk discussions. Insurers are increasingly using aerial imagery, satellite imagery, and other remote technologies to evaluate properties. In some cases, homeowners are receiving notices requesting pruning or removal of trees to maintain coverage, sometimes without an on-site evaluation by a qualified arborist.
That shift was front and center during this week’s ADVOCACY 101 – Trees, Insurance & Risk: Navigating a Changing Landscape webinar, which TCIA hosted with the Urban and Community Forestry Society and our insurance partners. The discussion brought together perspectives from arboriculture, urban forestry, advocacy, and insurance around an issue that appears to be evolving quickly.
What struck me most during the webinar was the number of people asking similar questions at the same time.
-
How is risk being evaluated?
-
What role should professional arborist assessments play?
-
How should homeowners respond when concerns are identified through aerial imagery or remote inspections?
-
What happens when an insurer, a municipality, a homeowner, and an arborist all look at the same tree and come to different conclusions?
When similar questions begin surfacing across multiple audiences and multiple states, we start paying attention. Because that’s often how new advocacy issues emerge; through a growing realization that something important is changing.
We’re already seeing that change reflected in policy discussions around the country.
-
In California, policymakers have considered proposals requiring disclosure of aerial images used in insurance decisions and providing opportunities for homeowners to challenge findings.
-
Colorado regulators have acknowledged the limitations of aerial imagery and encouraged additional verification when imagery alone is inconclusive.
-
Georgia has adopted protections related to cancellations and nonrenewals based on aerial imagery.
-
Florida continues to grapple with insurance market pressures driven by increasingly costly natural disasters.
-
At the national level, the National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) is examining broader questions involving transparency, consumer notification, verification, and insurers’ use of aerial imagery.
What’s interesting is that many of these discussions are no longer focused on whether insurers can use aerial imagery. In many respects, that debate has already been decided. The questions now are about process that follows.
-
How current should imagery be?
-
Should homeowners have access to the information being used to make decisions about their property?
-
Should there be an appeal process?
-
When should additional inspections be required?
-
When should professional evaluations be part of the process?
And perhaps most importantly for our industry: Where do arborists fit into the conversation?
Too often, these discussions include insurers, regulators, legislators, and property owners, but not the professionals most qualified to evaluate tree condition and tree risk.
That’s a challenge. But it’s also an opportunity. The tree care profession brings expertise that can improve these conversations. Arborists understand ANSI standards, tree risk assessment, site-specific evaluation, and the wide range of management options that exist between “do nothing” and “remove the tree.” Sometimes removal may be appropriate. Sometimes pruning, monitoring, cabling, bracing, or other mitigation measures may address the concern while preserving valuable canopy.
That’s why TCIA is paying attention. Not because insurance is new to our industry. But because this particular new issue has the potential to affect homeowners, municipalities, utilities, commercial properties, urban forests, and tree care companies of every size.
And it is exactly the kind of issue where the expertise of arborists needs to be part of the conversation.
This week’s webinar wasn’t the end of that conversation. It was the beginning. It helped strengthen partnerships, identify emerging questions, and create a foundation for future advocacy efforts as this issue continues to develop.
One of advocacy’s most important responsibilities is recognizing emerging issues before they become major issues. I think we’re at one of those moments. And I suspect we’re only at the beginning of this conversation.
