An insured’s tree falls on his vehicle. The personal auto carrier denies coverage for removal of the tree, arguing that the homeowners carrier should provide coverage.

Q: "Is this correct? I’m under the impression that the HO policy wouldn't cover removal either, since the tree didn't fall on the house. Is this correct too?"

A: “The insured might have coverage under both the PAP and the HO policy in this scenario. It depends on the language of each. Without copies of the policy forms, we can only respond using ISO forms as the basis for our analysis.

If the HO policy is an ISO 2000 or later edition date, there is coverage for removing a tree that blocks a driveway, which might be the case here. Otherwise, removal coverage requires that the tree damaged a covered structure due to a covered peril.

As for the ISO PAP, how can you repair the auto without removing the tree? Removing the tree to access the vehicle is part of the cost to repair, just like towing an auto from an accident scene.

That said, however, it's reasonable that the PAP would only cover the cost of removing the tree from the vehicle—not the entire cost of removing it from the premises. This shouldn’t be an issue if the insured has his home and auto policies with the same carrier, though your example suggests otherwise.

For more information, check out a Big ‘I’ Virtual University article on the same topic: ‘PAP Coverage for Removing a Tree from an Auto.’”

Bill Wilson is outgoing director of the Big “I” Virtual University.

This question was originally submitted by an agent through the VU’s Ask an Expert Service. Answers to other coverage questions are available on the VU website. If you need help accessing the website, email logon@iiaba.net to request login information.