Don't you think dupont would not recommend planting for a longer time if they felt damage was possible to newly planted trees? I am just asking because I can't imagine that dupont would want that headache and expense if newly planted trees started dying. That would really increase their Costs!
Also, around here brickman replaced all of their affected trees all over town last fall. So far no damage. I'll let know if I notice any.
Originally Posted by Starbuy
Csterno, AIRCORP (another member on here who's one of the scientists researching this and evaluating damage) has recommended that we shouldn't plant for at least 3 years and even then the replacement trees may not grow right. Of course, that is beyond DuPont's warranty time limit or care program of two years. Also, he recommends that we should add feet and thus value to each damaged tree replacement value based on the fact that those trees should have been x feet taller 3 years from now. Also, in order to really get your soil free of the stuff and prevent any future migration into newly planted areas one should be compensated for all the lawn to be replaced with new soil 3 to 4 feet down. Of course, will DuPont agree to all this through their direct process? Highly doubtful. So, you just have to ask yourself if you feel satisfied with their terms the way they are and can deal with any future loss that you didn't expect, and feel comfortable not knowing when DuPont will compensate you and no recourse through the courts if they delay for years or how long they'll take to make payments (offer allows for payments). If you're comfortable with it, and some seem to be, and fine with some of your compensation money going directly to a third party without your choice then DuPont's offer may be just fine for you. My neighbor is satisfied to take DuPont's offer even though they have no guarantee of a timely payment. They only had one tree damaged and won't replace it anyhow.