First, a review: Here is my very first post on the subject at hand. "If it was a dead or diseased tree, the city is liable for not removing it. If the tree was healthy, the city faces no liability at all. It was an act of God. (I learned a LOT about "tree law" after Fran.)" Please note! I did not argue the city's case, did I? I made a statement of fact only, and listed both possibilities, did I not? Now you folks can cry and whine like stuck puppies, but THAT is the law. Not just in "corrupt, crooked Wilmington," but in the entire state. A healthy tree is not a "dangerous tree." For those of you who successfully avoided even rudimentary exposure to tort liability processes in your life, here is how this will play out: 1. The injured parties contact the city, which claims that they are nuts and that the tree was the healthiest specimen on the entire coastal plain. (As we can see, that has already happened.) 2. The injured parties contact their insurance companies who examine the tree and make one of three decisions: A. "There was nothing wrong with this tree. We will pay for repairs. less your deductible." B. "The city is a bunch of lying dogs! This tree was a disaster waiting to happen. The trunk is rotted, there are termites in the roots, a fungus has ravaged the crown, and a gentle breeze could have toppled this tree. However, as a new roof for these two houses will cost less than the cost of hiring experts and filing suit, we will pay for the roof anyway." C. "The city is a bunch of lying dogs! This tree was a disaster waiting to happen. The trunk is rotted, there are termites in the roots, a fungus has ravaged the crown, and a gentle breeze could have toppled this tree. The tree not only damaged the roof, but several interior support walls and allowed the rain to trash the furnishings and carpet. Accordingly, we feel it is worth our while to sue to recover the money from the city. At that time, the city has two options: A. Fight the lawsuit and hope their experts are more convincing than the insurance company's experts. B. Settle because settling will likely be cheaper for THEM than going to trial. Now, here are my only two **opinions** on the subject: Unless there is an inordinate amount of damage inside the houses, the insurance companies will likely pay up and not file suit even if the tree was one-inch from death. It costs too much to simply get the ball rolling.....but if they do file suit..... ...the city, in general, has a backbone with the strength of overcooked linguine, and may offer to settle not only because it's cheaper, but to avoid the "mean ol' Wilmington," PR nightmare that is being manifested on this board by folks who refuse to accept what is established in law. Either way, these people are wasting their time dealing with the city directly. It's too easy for the city to gaff them off. That's what the insurance companies are for. Big guns are more impressive than bean shooters.