The cases below are real-life examples of how COMPU-WEATHER 's experts have helped to make the difference for our clients.

Sometimes it's more than just the weather

A rear-end collision took place on a side street in a suburb of Houston, causing injury to the driver of the first vehicle which was stopped at an intersection. The driver of the second vehicle stated that the sun was in his eyes to a point where he was temporarily blinded and could not see the first vehicle, which had stopped for a stop sign.

Attorneys for plaintiff called upon the expertise of COMPU-WEATHER to determine what the weather was at the time of the accident, including what factor, if any, the sun played. Although there was no rain occurring at the time of the incident, there was a high degree of cloudiness present. In addition, an analysis of the location of the sun at that moment in time, combined with the direction at which the car was traveling, revealed that sun glare would not have played a factor, even if there was a small break in the clouds at the time.

Armed with this information from COMPU-WEATHER, Plaintiff received what her attorney described as "a favorable settlement". 

Turning the tide on a case

The body of a man, who was reported missing for three days, was found on the shore of a public park in Westchester County, New York, which is adjacent to Long Island Sound. Police forensic experts determined that the body had been in the water for about 72 hours, and that trauma to the man's head was the cause of death, not drowning. Subsequent investigation led to the arrest of a man in connection to the murder.

The District Attorney handling the matter contended that the victim was murdered at a location some distance from where the body was found, and that after being dumped into the water, the body floated and ended up at the location where it was found. The man accused of the crime contended that he was no where near that area where the DA postulated the victim was murdered. And in fact he was close to where the body was actually found, at the time that the DA contends he was at the other location.

The attorney defending the accused called upon the expertise of COMPU-WEATHER. Working in conjunction with our team of in-house Ocean Meteorologists, it was determined that the body could not have been dropped into the water at the site that the DA contended. Analysis of tidal movement, along with the direction and speed of the wind during the time that the body was in the water, clearly indicated that the body could not have floated from where the DA postulated, to the spot where it was found.

Based on this evidence, charges were dropped against the accused. Over time, another man was brought to trial on the murder and convicted of the crime. 

All hail Doppler radar

A business owner in Missouri filed a claim with his insurance company, stating that the roof of his building had been heavily damaged by a severe hailstorm. And as a result of that barrage of hail, rain was able to pour into the building, causing extensive damage to walls and equipment. The policy stipulated that damage to the interior of the building due to rain, would be covered only if rain was allowed to enter the building due to natural causes, such as damage to the roof or exterior walls by virtue of strong winds or hail.

The hailstorm which occurred in that section of Missouri on that day was well documented, causing quite a bit of damage to homes, vehicles and businesses. However the adjuster for the insurance company, upon inspection of the building, suspected fraud. He contacted COMPU-WEATHER and requested a complete breakdown of the weather for that day and time period. Pin-point analysis of the weather for the exact spot in question was critical. The forensic team of meteorologists at COMPU-WEATHER went to work. In addition to analyzing surface weather observations, storm reports and other special weather statements, Doppler Radar images were also viewed. And these images told the tale. Hail was indeed widespread around the area that day. But not at the building site. The closest hail occurred about one-half mile to the north, northwest and east of the location of the building.

Based on this analysis, the claim was denied saving the insurance company $350,000. It was later determined that the damage to the roof, which allowed the rain to enter, was caused by neglect. 

You can't always believe what you read

Plaintiff, a 44-year old physician in Massachusetts, slipped and fell in a parking lot during the winter of 1999.  She sustained multiple injuries as a result of the fall, and would be unable to perform her normal job functions for an extended period of time. A suit was filed, claiming that the owner of the parking lot as well as the maintenance firm that was hired to remove snow and ice, were negligent in their duties.

During deposition, the physician testified that she slipped and fell on a patch of ice.  Attorneys representing the defendants presented evidence in the form of official U.S. Government certified weather documents, which indicated that the temperature leading up to and at the time of the incident was above the freezing mark of 32 degrees.  This served to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff's testimony that it was ice and not snow that caused her to slip. Her attorney thought otherwise, and called upon the expertise of COMPU-WEATHER.

By analyzing the temperature profile from the time of the last snowfall and up through the time of the accident, (including a review of the very same certified data that defense had presented) forensic meteorologists at COMPU-WEATHER were able to put the matter on ice.  At trial, it was explained to the jury that temperature readings recorded at officially-recognized weather observing sites, such as the one which defense presented as evidence, are taken at a height of 10 meters, or over 30 feet, above the ground. At ground level, and in particular on a dark-colored surface such as a paved parking lot, the temperature will be a few to several degrees colder than at that 30+ foot level where the thermometer sensor is located.  So despite the fact that the official temperature was 34-36 degrees leading up to the time of the accident, at ground level it was likely anywhere from 28-32 degrees.  As a result of that, the snow which had fallen on the previous day and melted could have easily become frozen, forming a layer of ice in that parking lot at the time of occurrence.

With the plaintiff's testimony now given credibility by the COMPU-WEATHER meteorologist's explanation, the jury came back with a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $2.2 million.  Prior to trial, defense had made a settlement offer of $350,000.

Don't clown around with the weather!

During a performance of a nationally-known traveling circus, a severe thunderstorm developed and moved rapidly across the area.  Strong winds from the storm caused a portion of the big-top to collapse, injuring more than a dozen spectators, some of them seriously.  Attorneys for the injured plaintiffs filed suit, claiming negligence on the part of the circus company for the way that the big-top tent was put up, and also for failure to monitor forecasts for the possibility of severe weather.

Plaintiffs' attorneys presented evidence in the form of surface weather observations from local airports, which indicated that the storms that day produced wind gusts as high as 57 mph.  The winds, they claimed, were high, but not high enough to cause the damage and collapse of the circus tent, had it been properly constructed and secured.

Attorneys representing the defendant circus company came to COMPU-WEATHER for a more detailed, pin-point look at the storms which occurred on that day in southern Minnesota.  Forensic meteorologists went to work, obtaining not only the same data which plaintiff's attorneys had presented, but also images of Doppler Radar for the area, at 15 minute increments from the time the thunderstorm developed, until the time it had passed the area where the circus was being held.  And it was the radar images which told the tale.  The parts of the line of thunderstorms which passed over the nearby airport observing locations were much weaker than the part that went over the circus location.  In addition, that part of the storm underwent "explosive strengthening" no more than five minutes before striking the area.  At nearby airports, the highest winds observed were 57 mph.  But at the site of the circus, radar measurements and estimates of the downdrafts coming out of the thunderheads indicated a high probability that winds were in excess of 90 mph, and possibly as high as 120 mph. COMPU-WEATHER meteorologists examined severe weather advisories and statements issued by The National Weather Service for that afternoon.  While they were somewhat accurate in forecasting the chance for severe weather, they were lacking in emphasizing the true severity of the storms which occurred.

Since the storms were of unusual and extraordinary strength, striking with little advance warning, even a tent which was properly constructed and secured (as the circus claims it was) stood little chance of holding up.  Based on this information, the two parties were able to reach a settlement prior to trial.  A settlement which attorneys for the circus termed as "much more favorable for our client, thanks to the detailed information provided by Compu-Weather".

The canyons of Manhattan

A painting company was hired to do work on the outside of a multi-story building located on the lower west side of Manhattan, New York.  A scaffolding was constructed on the outside of the building for their painters and maintenance personnel to work on. The scaffolding, when properly constructed, was manufactured to hold up in winds of up to 50 miles per hour.

Three days after the painters began using the scaffolding; it collapsed, injuring two workers.  Suit was filed against the manufacturer of the scaffolding, as well as the painting company.  The suit claimed negligence on the part of the painting company, for allowing employees to work on a windy day, putting them in a dangerous situation.  Attorneys for the defense, presented evidence in pre-trial hearings, which indicated that the wind speeds on the day and time leading up to the accident, were below the threshold levels established by the manufacturer of the equipment.  While it was a windy day by some standards, they claimed that it was not excessively so, with the wind speed measured at 25-30 miles per hour out of the northwest.

The law firm representing plaintiffs contacted COMPU-WEATHER.  An analysis of the weather for that day verified that winds measured at the closest observing sites to the location of the accident were indeed 25-30 miles per hour.  But the forensic team at COMPU-WEATHER knew that there was more to look at than just the observations.  A visit to the location of the scaffolding collapse by one of our meteorologists, revealed that to the west and northwest of the location, across the street from the site of occurrence, were two sets of buildings.  And it was the alignment of these buildings that prompted the meteorologist to make a return visit to the site.  That return visit was made on a day when the wind was coming from the same direction, and at the same speeds as on the day of the accident.  The meteorologist brought along an anemometer, which measures wind speed.  Placing the instrument where the scaffolding had been located, what it registered told the story.  At the same time that winds were being measured at 30-35 miles per hour at local observing sites, the wind at the accident site was being measured at 45-65 miles per hour!  What was happening is that the wind was coming from such a direction, so that it flowed in between the two sets of buildings across the street.  The wind was being "forced" in between the buildings, and when this occurs, it accelerates in speed. That is a principle of physics known as The Bernoulli Effect.  So while the winds at the observing sites measured one speed, the winds at the exact site of occurrence were quite another story. 

Backed with this information from COMPU-WEATHER, Plaintiffs attorneys were prepared to go to trial.  After disclosure of the information though, a favorable settlement was reached before the matter reached a courtroom.

Trace the route, find the source of water

A shipment of hand-crafted, one of a kind furniture arrived from Europe at the Port of Newark, New Jersey, where it was then loaded onto a truck which would take it to its final destination in Memphis, Tennessee.  While on the trans-ocean trip, the large container in which the furniture was held had been wrapped in a shrink-wrap-like covering for added protection from the elements.  The wrapping was removed for the over-land part of the journey, as safety regulations prohibit driving with such wrapping on the outside of the container being hauled by the truck.

Three days later, when the truck pulled into Memphis and the cargo was being unloaded into a warehouse, several items of furniture were found to have been damaged.  It was determined that moisture was the cause.  The furniture dealer blamed the trucking company, saying that rain must have entered the inside of the truck enroute.  The trucking company checked with its driver who said that he didn't run into any rain during his trip.  The trucking company pointed to the steamship company as the culprit.  They denied any wrong-doing, saying that the container was wrapped up tight as a drum during transit.  They said it must have happened at the docks in Bremerhaven, Germany, where the furniture was loaded onto the ship.  Fingers were being pointed in every direction, with no one taking responsibility.  The attorney for the Memphis furniture dealer used his finger to dial COMPU-WEATHER.

Since the furniture had been a moving target,  forensic meteorologists at COMPU-WEATHER first obtained copies of the truckers log, which indicated where the vehicle was at various times and days.  By analyzing the weather along the drive route at the specific times of the day the truck was traveling through, the driver's story was verified:  no rain had fallen on the truck during the drive.  Since the container had been sealed watertight during the ocean part of the transit, rain could not have entered during that leg of the journey.  COMPU-WEATHER then checked the weather in the Port of Bremerhaven on the day the shipment was loaded onto the vessel.  Once again, no rain was found.  But looking beyond precipitation, the source of the moisture which caused the damage was located.  On the day that the furniture was loaded into the container, the weather was very hot and humid.  This meant that the air inside of the container was very damp.  The container was then sealed tightly, trapping this moisture-laden air inside.  During the trans-ocean part of the trip, the cargo ship encountered colder weather, which caused the air inside of the container to cool off rapidly.  Since colder air can't hold as much moisture as warmer air, condensation occurred inside the closed container.  And that condensed moisture ended up on the furniture, causing damage to several expensive pieces.

Don't gamble with your weather analysis!

A 54 year old man slipped and fell outside of Harrah's Casino on the Las Vegas strip.  He sustained injuries to his leg, shoulder and head.  The suit filed by his attorney stated that the man had fallen due to a layer of ice on the sidewalk where the incident took place. 

Attorneys representing the insurance carrier which covers the casino sought to find out the source of the ice.  After all, this was Las Vegas, a location in a desert area not know for wintry type precipitation.  They contacted COMPU-WEATHER looking for an explanation.  First, the meteorologist assigned to the case did a complete analysis of the weather in Las Vegas on the days leading up to the accident.  He determined the weather had been dry, with no precipitation reported at anytime.  So ice forming by virtue of rain, snow or sleet was ruled out.  After receiving this information, the defense attorney questioned the plaintiff.  In deposition, he stated that the source of the water which froze into ice came from a nearby lawn sprinkler which goes on and off automatically.  It was cold the night that he fell, so the wayward water from the sprinkler must have become frozen just before he walked across it.

Defense attorneys came back to COMPU-WEATHER looking for additional information.  The forensic meteorologist working the case did an analysis of the daily high and low temperatures for the preceding 30 days.  What he found was that the temperature was indeed cold at the time the slip took place.  However despite the 29 degree temperature at the time, it was nearly impossible for the water from the sprinkler to have become frozen.   The ground was simply not that cold.  Temperatures over the preceding month had dropped into the 20s on a few occasions. But by in large, low temperatures during that time were in the 30s and 40s, along with daytime highs mostly in the 50s and 60s.  This was not the type of temperature profile that would lead to a cold ground, which would have been needed in order for water to freeze that night.

Armed with this information, defense refused any offer of settlement presented by plaintiff's attorney.  Eventually, the plaintiff admitted that it may have been just water, and not ice, which he stepped on that evening.  With his testimony now lacking credibility, the suit was eventually dropped. 

Out of this world weather analysis

The company which owns and operates the huge parking lot facility at the Croton-Harmon commuter train station north of New York City was being sued in Small Claims Court.  Plaintiff was the owner of a car which was damaged while parked in the lot on the day that flooding took place.  While the amount in damage reimbursement being sought by the vehicle owner was relatively small at $550, there was concern by the parking lot company that if judgment was found in favor of the Plaintiff, that the flood gates could be opened for many other lawsuits, as over 1,000 vehicles had been damaged by water in the parking lot on that same day.  So because of this concern, the owners of the parking lot brought in their attorney, even though the case was being heard in Small Claims Court.  Their attorney brought in COMPU-WEATHER.

The big questions were this:  Why did such terrible flooding occur in the parking lot, and was it something that the owners should have reasonably expected to occur and prepare for?  The forensic meteorologist assigned to the case prepared an in-depth analysis of the weather on the day of the occurrence, as well as the preceding day.  What is showed is that a ferocious storm with very strong winds and heavy rain moved through the area.  Rainfall for the two-day event amounted to more than three inches.  A bad rainstorm?  Yes it was.  But not bad enough to explain the extensive flooding that occurred. Digging deeper, the meteorologist discovered that a rare astronomical occurrence had taken place on the very day of the storm.  The occurrence was called The Great Syzygy, and it is an event which takes place only once every few centuries. Six planets in our solar system were in alignment on that day, along with the Moon.  The result of this alignment was that the tidal flow in the Hudson River (which runs right next to the Croton-Harmon parking lot) was running extraordinarily high that day.  This much higher than usual tide, combined with strong west winds on the backside of the storm which pushed water towards the east bank, caused water from the Hudson River to come up and over the embankment in between the river and the parking lot.  That, on top of more than three inches of rain, produced the flooding.

The report prepared by COMPU-WEATHER was presented as evidence at the hearing.  Based on the fact that what had caused the flooding to occur was so rare an event, it was deemed by the judge that the owners of the lot could not have reasonably planned for such an occurrence to take place.  Thus, they were not held liable for the damage which occurred to Plaintiff's car.  In following months, several other suits against the owners of the lot were heard.  And each time, verdict was for the defense.

Moonshine

On a rural stretch of highway in Tennessee, a pick-up truck ran into a cow that had wandered out of a nearby pasture and onto the shoulder of the road.  The driver of the pick-up sustained injuries as a result of the crash, and the truck itself was heavily damaged. The driver retained the services of an attorney, who filed suit against the farmer that owned the cow.  In addition, the county in which the accident took place was also named in the suit, citing inadequate lighting on the road.  The driver claimed that he could not see the cow "until the last moment" because of how dark it was.  The accident had taken place at 1:30am.

Attorneys working for the insurance carrier that underwrote the policy covering the county contacted COMPU-WEATHER.  They wanted to know what factor, if any, the weather played that night.  After going through the details of the accident, the meteorologist assigned to the case suggested that an analysis of the Moon and how much light it provided be included in the report.  

The weather was clear that night, with no fog, haze or other natural obscuration present. That would prove to be an important point when combined with the result of the astronomical portion of the analysis.  The meteorologist determined that the Moon was in between its Waxing Gibbous and Full phases, meaning that approximately 87% of the surface was illuminated that evening, at an angle of 70 degrees above the horizon.  In plain language, "a lot" of natural light would have been present.  Defense attorneys, at the suggestion of COMPU-WEATHER, retained a lighting reconstruction expert.  Working in conjunction with COMPU-WEATHER's forecasting division, the expert was able to take his light meter readings, on a night when the weather was similar to that which existed on the night of the accident, and when the Moon was in a similar position and phase.  It took more than six months for those conditions to come together.  But the COMPU-WEATHER forecast office kept track of the weather and was able to alert the expert days in advance. 

After presenting the weather and lighting evidence, it was eventually determined that a lack of lighting did not play a factor in causing the accident that night. And the county was deemed not liable in the matter.  The driver eventually settled with the farmer.  The cow, sadly, did not survive the ordeal.

Have weather will travel

A municipal employee of a town in Chester County, Pennsylvania, was terminated from her position due to excessive absence and tardiness over a period of time in the winter.  The employee's union filed a grievance against the town, citing wrongful termination, in as much as the woman was unable to make the 32 mile drive into work on the days she was absent, due to bad weather and poor driving conditions. Attorneys representing the town presented evidence which showed that a number of other employees made it into work on those same days, and thus, the town was within its rights to terminate her employment.

The attorney working on behalf of the union contacted COMPU-WEATHER.  Presented with a list of days and the driving route that the woman would normally take on her way to and from work, the meteorologist assigned to the case went to work.  An analysis of the weather showed that on several of the days which the woman claimed she could not make it in to work, the weather was significantly different at her home, compared to where she worked.  And each time, the weather was worse.  In one instance, freezing rain changed over to rain at her workplace early in the morning. But at her home, the freezing persisted into the midday hours, as her home was located in a valley area which held the colder air in place longer.  This meant that roads remained quite hazardous into the afternoon on that day. On another day, scattered snow squalls fell across the area.  But none in the town where she worked.  At the same time, heavy bursts of snow deposited several inches of snow in her hometown.  This caught the local highway department by surprise and delayed making the roads safe to drive on.  And on yet another instance, fog which had formed overnight, caused a slick glaze to form on many streets and roads in and around where she lived, due to temperatures which had fallen into the 20s during the night.  At the same time, in the town where she worked, no fog formed and thus no ice was ever produced. 

The union attorney presented this evidence to the town, along with a request that the employee be reinstated to her job.  She was.  And she was also given back pay dating back to the date of termination.

Cop a weather plea

During a routine stop for a traffic violation, the police officer detected what he deemed to be the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle he had pulled over.  Having what he considered being probable cause; the officer searched the car and found two bags of pot in the trunk.  He promptly arrested the driver and charged him with possession of a controlled substance.

The arrested individual told his attorney that the policeman "had it in for him" because of the way he looked and because of his previous run-ins with the law.   Knowing that his client already had two prior convictions on drug charges, and that he was looking at serious jail time if convicted a third time, the defense attorney knew that he had to come up with something.  He contacted COMPU-WEATHER, requesting an analysis of the weather at the time of the arrest, especially with regards to the wind.  The meteorologist assigned to the case, did a micro-analysis of the wind field at the exact site where the car was pulled over.  He also made a site visit to the location, in order to determine what, if any, effect surrounding objects, such as buildings and tress, might have had on the wind.

The meteorologist's analysis showed that at the time of the arrest, the wind was coming from such a direction, that it would have been flowing from the officer's back towards the car, at a speed of 17-20 miles per hour.    The report indicated that it had been a warm evening, so it was not unreasonable for the car to have had all of its windows rolled down, as the driver had stated.  This would have the effect of allowing wind to flow into the window on the driver's side of the car, and then out the open windows on the other side.  Using this information, the defense attorney argued that there was no possible way that the officer could have smelled the pot in the trunk of the car, as the wind was blowing away from him at a fairly brisk pace, which would have carried the odor away, and not towards him.  So the search of the vehicle was illegal, as there had been no probable cause to do so.

Based in part on this information, the District Attorney reduced the charges against the driver, since the credibility of the officer's testimony had, to a certain degree, gone up in smoke.  The driver agreed to the plea, and received a lesser sentence.   For the time being anyway.  Months later he was arrested once again and convicted, which lead to a much longer stint in jail.   

Covering all the weather bases

A 37-year old man slipped and fell on a sidewalk in front of a business located in Yonkers, New York.  He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital, where it was determined that he had sustained serious injuries to his right hip and leg.  These injuries led to several surgical procedures over the course of the following few months.  During this time, the man was unable to work at his job, and there was doubt as to whether he might ever be able to work at his occupation, which required a fair amount of standing and lifting of heavy objects. 

The man claimed that he slipped on a small patch of ice which was present on the sidewalk.  He hired an attorney, who filed a claim with the insurance company which underwrote the liability policy for the business.  After some investigation, the insurance company denied the claim.  The adjustor handling the matter used the internet to obtain the weather observations from LaGuardia Airport, which is the closest observing point to the location in Yonkers where the accident took place.  The LaGuardia data indicated that at the time of the slip, snow was falling.   The insurance company's stance was that this was "an event in progress", and thus, the business owner was not obligated to clear his sidewalk until the snow had ended.

The attorney representing the plaintiff contacted COMPU-WEATHER.   Following standard procedure, the meteorologist assigned to the case accessed Compu-Weather's extensive in-house database and examined the observations from LaGuardia, which is located to the south of the accident site, as well as several other sites which surround Yonkers.  What he found is that while snow was falling at LaGuardia at the time of the accident, it had started to fall only one hour earlier.  An analysis of the closest observing points to the north of Yonkers, which were White Plains and Dobbs Ferry, indicated that snow did not start falling until 90 minutes after the time of the accident.  So now with the starting time of the snow at the exact point-of-loss in question, the meteorologist went one step further and examined Doppler radar images of southeastern New York.   These images told the story.  The snow on that day began falling sooner to the south, and then advanced northward.  However it had taken nearly two hours for the leading edge of the snow to move from the LaGuardia airport area, up into Yonkers.  Thus, at the time of the slip, snow was not falling at the point-of-loss.   

Going beyond the day of the accident, the meteorologist then examined the weather for the proceeding week.  A three inch snowfall had taken place three days earlier.  The high and low temperatures on the days and nights following that event, were conducive for a melt/re-freeze scenario, which would explain the patch of ice on the sidewalk on the day of the slip, just as the plaintiff had stated.

Plaintiff's attorney presented this information to the law firm representing the insurance company.  After several meetings, a favorable settlement for the plaintiff in the amount of $750,000 was reached.

Barking up the wrong tree

During a rainstorm, a large tree toppled over.  Due to its enormous size and weight, the tree fell over the fence separating two yards and onto the neighbors garage, causing extensive damage to not only the garage and tool shed located next to it, but also to the two vehicles parked inside.  Both vehicles were high-end quality and relatively new.  The owners of the garage shed and vehicles filed a claim with their insurance company, and received a payout in the amount of $97,000 to cover the loss and damages.  Their insurance company then filed suit against the insurance company which covered the homeowner who owned the tree, and received reimbursement for the entire amount.  Shortly after that, the subrogation division of the tree-owner's insurance company started an investigation.

The investigator handling the case contacted COMPU-WEATHER. He wanted to know if the amount of rain which occurred on the day the tree fell, was extraordinary and could have played a part in it falling over.   While analyzing the weather for that day, the meteorologist assigned to the case noted that rain had fallen intermittently on the 10 days leading up to the day of occurrence.  He conveyed this along to the insurance investigator along with a recommendation that a study be performed to determine if the amount of rain that fell over that 10 day period was unusual.  Working in conjunction with COMPU-WEATHER'S in-house computer technology division, a program was written which would analyze the amount of rain and/or melted down snow equivalent which occurred over each and every ten day period of time, dating back to the year that weather observations first began to be collected at the nearest spot to the point-of-loss.  That observing spot began taking observations some 65 years earlier.

In the 10 days leading up to the day the tree fell, a total of 3.12" of rain had fallen.  But was this enough to cause the ground to soften up enough to play a part in the tree falling over?  Probably not.  The results of the 65 year study indicated that 3.12" or more of rain over a 10 day period of time, had occurred a total of 247 times.  Certainly NOT an unusual occurrence for this location.  

Now that weather could be ruled out as a cause, the investigator dug deeper, calling on the knowledge of a tree expert. His examination of the photos determined that the tree was in a weakened state due to decay, and probably should have been removed, or at least pruned back substantially, well before the accident. The insurance company filed claim against the owner, stating that he had been negligent in his care and handling of the tree.  A settlement was eventually reached, with the insurance company recouping a substantial amount of what it had paid out.