Who should be responsible?

Just curious, a yesterday inspection, it appears that sometime in the past, a
tree limb must have fallen onto the service line, pulling the mast toward the road. It is leaning, and it ripped a hole in the soffit and roof.
I told the client to call the utility and get them to at least check the service entrance.
Since this is before the meter, is the PoCo responsible for this?

P1040624 (640 x 480).jpg

P1040623 (640 x 480).jpg

At least in this jurisdiction, the mast is the responsibility of the homeowner. The POCO is responsible for attachment of their service conductors to the conductors supplied through the mast by the homeowner.

I kind of suspect that here, too, but I think it warrants a call to the POCO anyway. They should at leat drive out and take a look. They need to trim the tree limbs anyway!
For new construction, this utility has been doing underground service. I guess this is why!

The “before the meter” thinking is flawed in most areas. Typically the POCO’s responsibility ends at the taps. The glass meter itself is always theirs, but the meter pan and all service equipment is the customer’s.
YES, I know, some areas do supply “up to the meter”, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

Those low voltage cables has to go. Nothing but the electrical service can hit the riser.

While we know this is true Mike, I think the CATV and TELCO guys will do this until the end of time, or unitl the last overhead service is gone.

It is the same here.

Unfortunate as it is, that’s the homeowner’s responsibility, unless you happen to live in one of the very rare areas where the PoCo provides the mast. It might have been able to have been avoided if the mast was properly strapped to begin with. I see ne’er a strap on that whole mast. I’d have had about two, two-hole straps on that mast. I’d rather see a mast get bent or the drop torn down before I’d install it in such a way that the roof and soffit got wallowed out like that. Bummer for the homeowner.

Around here, too. POCO has responsibility from the spices, back (and they will sometimes accept it :mrgreen: ).

I understand everyone here is commenting on ‘who has authority’, however read the story.

The tree hit the wires and pulled the mast. If a parked car next to my car, gets hit and then hits my car. Each person is responsibility for the care of their car, but in this situation, the damage caused to my car isn’t my fault. So, it doesn’t mean it’s my responsibility. See where I’m going with this? Clearly this is God’s fault. :wink: Just kidding, call the PoCo and the home insurance company, file a claim and let them fight it out.


Oh I get it now.
I am pretty sure it would fall under “act of god” so it is no one’s fault and you gotta pay 'cause it’s your equipment.

There’s also other variables, such as: Who’s tree was it? :twisted:


Act of G-d is a legal and insurance company term that means a highly unlikely occurance that wasn’t calculated into the insurance actuarial calculations, and therefore, the insurance company doesn’t have to pay for it, according to the insurance company policy.

Just an ‘accident’.

Just a little added info - the homeowner wasn’t aware of this “wallowed out” hole in their roof. (Thanks, Marc for the great descriptive term!) So they claim.
Of course, moisture is getting into the roof and into the interior wall at that point. I’d love to image this wall with IR - it would probably tell a lot!..if I had IR…:frowning:

Call another NACHI guy in your area. I’m sure they would help. I do it all the time for guys in my area.

A few years ago, my neighbors tree lost a good size limb on their tree and took out 8’ of my picket fence. The old couple came over and apologize and offer me to go down town and talk to their Insurance agent.
To my surprise, the only way their insurance was going to pay for the damage, was if I filed an act of negligence on the old folks that the dried up limbs should have been monitored to prevent such an occurrence. Other than that, my own Homeowner insurance will have to pay for my fence.

Well, I was not about to claim negligence on these old folks, so I put in a claim with my insurance. Made an estimate on my Companies letterhead and submitted.
They paid for the repairs, disposal fees for an amount of $500 for what took me about 4 hours to fix.

Getting back to the damage, I agree with some of the comments, that the mast should have had straps to the building and the communication lines should not be hooked up to the mast.
I also noticed that there doesn’t appear to have a weather boot around it.

Hope the owner well with his insurance claim.

Marcel :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Determining the causes (and proper repair) for a defect is beyond an inspection. But out of curiosity did ya see signs of impact damage and/or large broken branches nearby that would lead you to believe it was caused by a tree limb?

It might also just be movement from an inadequately attached mast, occurring over time (I also don’t see any substantial mast attachments).