HB 7138 creates a new rule for disputes between neighboring private property owners when a tree or tree limb falls from one parcel onto another. Under the bill, the owner of the property where the tree was located is presumed liable for the cost of removing the fallen tree or limb from the adjoining owner’s land if, before the fall, an arborist had documented that the tree was diseased, decayed, or damaged and likely to fall within five years, the neighboring owner gave written certified-mail notice, and the tree owner failed to cure the condition within 90 days. The bill also states that no property owner can be forced to allow an arborist onto the property for inspection, and that a notice is personal to the owner who sent it and does not run with the land.
The bill includes several exceptions and rebuttal provisions. Liability does not apply if the tree owner was at least 64 years old on October 1, 2025 and had income below the applicable HUD median income for the area. The presumption of liability can also be rebutted if a later arborist inspection found the tree was not hazardous, or if the tree fell for another reason such as a vehicle collision, fire, lightning, or another act of God. The bill further preserves other civil remedies and limits how liability insurance may offset recoveries related to the fallen tree or limb.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new statutory framework governing tree-fall cleanup costs on private property and would likely affect neighboring landowners, arborists, insurers, and attorneys handling property damage disputes. It expressly excludes certain categories of land from the definition of private real property, including state and municipal property, water company property, nonprofit conservation land, timber land, farm land, forest land, and open space land. The measure is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in committee, with joint favorable votes in both Judiciary and Insurance. The Judiciary Committee vote was 35-4, and the Insurance Committee vote was 8-5, indicating broad support overall but some disagreement, especially in the Insurance Committee. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the split vote suggests concerns likely centered on liability exposure, insurance implications, and the fairness of shifting cleanup costs to property owners.
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between protecting neighboring property owners from the cost of removing hazardous fallen trees and limiting burdens on the tree owner, especially older and lower-income homeowners. The bill’s age-and-income exemption, notice requirements, and carveouts for acts of God and other causes suggest lawmakers were trying to narrow liability to cases where a known hazard was ignored, while avoiding automatic liability in every tree-fall situation.
The bill would create a new section of the General Statutes establishing a presumption of liability for certain tree-fall removal expenses between adjoining private property owners, while also defining exceptions, rebuttal standards, and insurance-related offsets. It would not apply to specified public, nonprofit, conservation, timber, agricultural, forest, or open-space lands, and it would preserve other civil remedies already available under law.
The committee votes indicate generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, with strong support in Judiciary and a narrower but still favorable margin in Insurance. The absence of transcript material limits insight into specific arguments, but the vote pattern suggests the concept of assigning cleanup costs to owners who ignore documented hazardous trees had broad appeal, while insurance and liability concerns drew some opposition.
The likely areas of contention are whether the bill fairly shifts costs to the tree owner, how difficult it may be for a neighbor to obtain an arborist inspection and provide notice, and whether the presumption of liability could increase insurance claims or litigation. The age-and-income exemption may also have been debated as a fairness measure for older, lower-income homeowners, while others may have viewed it as creating unequal treatment or complicating enforcement. The Insurance Committee’s closer vote suggests the insurance consequences and deductible/offset provisions were a significant concern.