Insights · Casco and other covers

A tree fell on your car, a roof tile came down: does casco pay, or the local authority or the condominium?

A summer thunderstorm, a plane tree toppled onto a parked car at dawn; roof tiles crashing down in an autumn wind in front of a block of flats. The question is the same every storm season: who pays for the damage – casco, the local authority, the condominium, or no one? As a broker, I see that the answer depends on three things: whether you have casco, whether anyone is at fault for the condition of the tree or the roof, and how much evidence was gathered in the first hour. This article sorts out the roles of the three players – insurer, owner, force majeure – along the lines set by MABISZ (the Hungarian insurers' association) and the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), without promising any figures.

In brief:
  • With casco, damage from a fallen tree or a falling part of a building typically comes under the natural-hazard cover: policy conditions usually tie the definition of storm to a wind-speed threshold and extend to cases where natural forces cause another object to fall onto the vehicle. The insurer pays less the deductible, and if someone is liable, it can itself pursue them under Section 6:468 of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.).
  • Without casco, under Section 6:519 of the Ptk. the owner or manager of a tree is liable only if they were at fault (with a diseased, rotten or neglected tree); typically nobody pays for a healthy tree brought down by an exceptional storm. For falling roof tiles or plaster, Section 6:560 is more favourable: the owner of the building is liable unless they prove that maintenance was in order.
  • The evidence is won or lost in the first few hours: photos of the base of the tree and the break surface, the roof, the car and the surroundings, witnesses, weather data, then a written report to the insurer, or to the owner, the local authority or the condominium's managing agent.

With casco: natural-hazard damage, with a deductible – and the insurer's right of recourse

Casco natural-hazard cover typically ties the definition of storm to a wind-speed threshold – one Hungarian set of policy conditions, for example, regards weather-related air movement reaching a speed of 15 m/s (54 km/h) as a storm – and the same conditions expressly extend to damage caused when, as a result of natural forces, other objects fall onto the vehicle or strike it. A fallen tree, a broken-off branch or a falling roof tile is therefore the typical picture of storm damage; MABISZ's storm-season guidance also states that casco contracts include the storm risk, so the insurer – less any deductible – compensates the damage incurred. The article on natural-hazard damage sets out the limits of the definitions; the thresholds and exclusions vary from insurer to insurer, so it is worth checking your own policy conditions. Two practical questions: if the tree falls in calm weather because of rot, some policy conditions treat a foreign object falling onto the car as collision damage – this depends on the policy conditions; and the deductible is applied regardless of who is at fault.

Casco does not ask whether anyone is to blame for the damage: it pays according to the contract. If, however, someone is liable – a rotten tree, a neglected roof – then under Section 6:468 of the Ptk. the insurer acquires the rights that the insured person had against the person liable for the damage, so the insurer can seek recourse up to the amount it has paid out. This affects you in that you can claim the deductible from the liable party with the same evidence, and that the photos taken at the scene will also be important to the insurer. The reporting process is set out step by step in the article on reporting hail and storm damage: documenting, reporting via the insurer's claims line, inspection, and only then repair.

Without casco: who is liable for a fallen tree?

Here there is no contract any more, only liability. The basis for compensation is Section 6:519 of the Ptk.: anyone who unlawfully causes damage to another must compensate for it, and is released from liability if they prove that their conduct was not culpable. Looking after a tree in a public space is the task of the owner or manager of that public space – usually the local authority or its company – while a tree on private land is the responsibility of the property owner. A culpable omission exists if the condition of the tree posed a danger that regular inspection would have revealed, and nothing was done about it: according to MABISZ's guidance, if the tree was demonstrably diseased or rotten and its owner or manager did not look after it properly, there is a duty to pay compensation – such cases, however, are rarely clear-cut, and experts often find shared liability. The other side: a storm of exceptional force can bring down a healthy tree too. In that case the owner can exonerate themselves – there was nothing for them to notice and prevent – and without casco the loss stays with you. This is the case of force majeure, and it is one of the reasons why trees deserve a separate entry in the risk profile of people who park on the street.

The burden of proof is on the injured party. What helps: photos of the base of the tree and the break surface (a rotten, hollow or fungus-infested trunk), of the crown and of the condition of the surrounding trees; earlier reports by residents about the dangerous tree, if there were any; weather data for the day in question; and, if necessary, an expert opinion from an arborist or a horticultural engineer. It is worth submitting the claim in writing and itemised to the owner or the local authority – if they have liability insurance, a well-founded claim is typically settled by their insurer, on the basis of the same evidence.

Without casco: falling roof tiles, plaster, roof parts

With objects falling from a building, the law is more favourable to the injured party. Under Section 6:560 of the Ptk., the owner of a building is liable for damage caused to another by parts of the building falling off or by defects in the building, unless they prove that the rules on construction and maintenance were not breached and that they acted in the way that can generally be expected in the given situation to prevent damage. The burden of proof is thus reversed: it is not you who has to prove an omission, but the owner who has to show that maintenance was kept in order. In a condominium (társasház), the roof, the façade and the chimney are typically common property under the Condominium Act (Tht.), and their upkeep is the task of the community of co-owners – so the claim is addressed to the condominium, in practice to its managing agent (közös képviselő); the liability section of a condominium insurance policy typically covers such damage, if the policy includes that cover. An utterly exceptional storm can be grounds for exoneration here too, but the bar is higher: a loose tile or plaster that has been crumbling for a long time can hardly be put down to the wind.

When nobody is liable – and home insurance does not help either

A healthy tree, a well-maintained roof, an exceptional storm: this is the situation in which, without casco, there is no one to turn to. Home insurance policies typically exclude motor vehicles from the insured property, and compulsory motor third-party liability (MTPL) insurance covers damage caused to others. That is why the article on the purpose of casco considers not only theft and collisions but also these “nobody is at fault” losses – for a car parked on the street under trees, this is not a theoretical item. The logic of parking damage is the same: where no one is liable, the contract is the only source of compensation.

What should you do, step by step?

Prevention is covered in the article on damage prevention for drivers: when there is a storm warning, moving your car out from under trees and old roofs is sometimes worth more than any insurance. In a claim, the primary route for reporting is the insurer's claims line; if a casco case gets stuck or disputed, I help where I can– compensation from the owner or the local authority is a legal matter, but the evidence it requires is the same as what also has to be put together for the insurer.

Have a question specific to your own storm damage? book a free 20-minute consultation →

Sources

This article is for information purposes only; it contains general information and does not constitute an offer or insurance advice. The exact content of insurance contracts is defined by the insurers' terms and conditions in force. Enforcing a compensation claim against the owner or manager of a tree or a building is a legal matter, determined by the circumstances of the case and the legislation in force at the time – in a disputed case, involving a legal adviser is advisable.

Related articles

Let's talk through in 20 minutes what's right for your car.

Free of charge, no obligation – by the end you will see your options and the next step clearly.

📞 +36 20 362 6835✉️ info@tukacs.com
Book an appointment