Register free!

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #381  
Old 06-28-2012, 01:01 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
Glad you documented.

My inspection/report was done in May or June 2011 by my lawn company, me and hubby helped with pictures and measurements and the report. Dupont came out to check damage in April 2012 and wouldn't add the additional damage either. Have more damage since then.
Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 06-28-2012, 01:04 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by tellmey View Post
I called a Davey Tree hazard tree specialist and he got in touch with a local MN Davey office. They came out, took pics and cut down five hazard trees and billed Dupont directly. One tree was not on the first claim filed by my LCO. The guys at the visit were from Davey and Stericycle (sp). I don't think many people know if they have trees that may be hazardous they can be expedited. Just need to document completely including taking your own pics.
So you didn't have to pay anything? Did they just cut it down and leave the stump?
Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 06-28-2012, 01:24 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by tellmey View Post
Hello. I've been monitoring for some time and since I just had a site "visit" yesterday I can only add my disappointment and lack of interest the experts showed. The fact that I had damage to new trees and one 20 footer that was removed because of a hazard, that I can't add to my claim, makes me furious. Now I have to wait for a proposal, reject it, amend it and wait longer. I have between 8 and 15 damaged trees plus a centerpiece 75' Blue Spruce toasted.
Sounds like you'll eventually be headed the way most of us on here have gone, to an attorney for help. You certainly deserve compensation for that lost tree they removed. When DuPont told me what they'd do about removing some of mine they said their way is to leave the stump (just grind it down). I refused because I hope to replant their someday. Their response basically was 'good luck' and you're on your own. Well, I'm not on my own anymore.

After my recent true-arborist evaluation by someone not hired by DuPont was done, I now have 35 plants on record as damaged instead of the 16 DuPont had on their record. Plus soil core samples done and we'll be watching and officially documented any further damage to come. No longer calling DuPont about anything. They can talk to my attorney.

Last edited by Starbuy; 06-28-2012 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 06-28-2012, 02:12 PM
tellmey tellmey is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: minnesota
Posts: 6
They ground the stump took all debris away in filled with dirt. They billed Dupont. I did ask what the cost was and didn't want to give me that info. I just wanted it for more documentation. Btw, what an incredible knowledge base this discussion is, thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 06-28-2012, 02:49 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by tellmey View Post
They ground the stump took all debris away in filled with dirt. They billed Dupont. I did ask what the cost was and didn't want to give me that info. I just wanted it for more documentation. Btw, what an incredible knowledge base this discussion is, thank you.
Yes it is and we so appreciate this forum for allowing us to post and keep up to date, this site has the best, up-to-date information.

Did they offer to replace the five trees?
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 06-28-2012, 03:08 PM
bailter bailter is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by tellmey View Post
They ground the stump took all debris away in filled with dirt. They billed Dupont. I did ask what the cost was and didn't want to give me that info. I just wanted it for more documentation. Btw, what an incredible knowledge base this discussion is, thank you.
I had contacted Dupont awhile ago. During the discussion I mentioned that the dead trees can scratch you when mowing around them, and can draw blood, and who knows what chemical might infect it. As soon as I mentioned this they deemed I have hazardous trees and had Davy tree contact me. They came out and we tagged 10 trees that we will remove tomorrow. I have already taken pictures of these 10 trees, and plan on taking pictures again while they are cutting them down. They told me they will flush cut and remove the trees, and then follow up with someone else (can't remember the name but probably the same person you mentioned) to grind out the stumps and replace with new dirt. I am a little nervous about losing my proof of dead trees, but hopefully with Davy documentation and my own I will be covered. Still no dupont proposal. Still waiting. Called and waiting a return call to see what the status is. I also have a lot of new trees that were not on the original list that are now affected and many that were rated have gotten worse. I know I will have to reject the proposal and this will take more time, but what choice is there. But maybe not too bad since I really would not want to replant until spring 2013. I would think any kind of lawsuit would take longer yet, and I don't want to wait that long.
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 06-28-2012, 03:25 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailter View Post
...They told me they will flush cut and remove the trees, and then follow up with someone else (can't remember the name but probably the same person you mentioned) to grind out the stumps and replace with new dirt.
...I know I will have to reject the proposal and this will take more time, but what choice is there. But maybe not too bad since I really would not want to replant until spring 2013. I would think any kind of lawsuit would take longer yet, and I don't want to wait that long.
So, are you not planning on ever planting anything in the spot where the ground stump is, since they don't want to pay for actual excavation to remove the root ball and contaminated soil? This was my problem with their proposal to me, since the row of trees I need out is my only privacy and wind hedge on one side of my property. I have to be able to get my privacy hedge back at some point I hope.

I thought the same thing about going the attorney route taking longer than getting everything resolved directly with DuPont and get compensated, UNTIL I received their offer to me. That made me realize, along with conversations with DuPont, that it was going to take a long time to try to haggle with them on all the expenses I need reimbursed for and then they still said they won't give anyone a date by which they will be compensated after they sign. They could, according to what I see in their offer to me, not pay me for years and if they do they can make "payments". If their offer to you has any compensation deadlines they'll agree to adhere to please let us know. That would be interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 06-28-2012, 03:42 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
I really wanted to believe they wanted to work with me but its the end of June and they haven't made any effort to fix it and this is a company that wants me to release them from further damage? They aren't responsive now, what happens when I sign?
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 06-28-2012, 04:58 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
EPA minutes from June.

You can also review earlier minutes from our meetings at www.aapco.org under the “Meeting” and then “Meeting Minutes” links.

11:00 – 11:45 a.m.
DISCUSSION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ISSUES WORKING COMMITTEE REPORT ROY MEYER, CHAIR, EQI

Meyer reported there will be an “interwoven” Issue Paper developed to address the compost circumstances related to Imprelis and clopyralid injury. Questions of third party liability (references on the label); environmental fate of the compounds; and SLA laboratory capabilities will also need to be considered as part of the IP. Three EQI members will attend the PREP course next week and there are plans for them to draft the IP after hours. A discussion paper will be presented at the fall EQI. Giguere noted the POM WC is concerned with the issue of third party liability on labeling – which may be cited on products used on crops, pastures, etc. that may be composted (through manure, etc.). Giguere agreed to provide feedback to Meyer on POM “third party risk mitigation” discussions. Bamber noted Montana has found it very difficult to reach composters and asked why were the issues with these a.i.’s not picked up in the environmental fate risk assessment? Bowman stated the third party liability statements are being used on labels with the intention of mitigating risk – but they are not working. She also noted the problem is broader than the compost issue. Dwinell suggested having EFED at the December SFIREG meeting to discuss their risk assessment decision to include these statements. Schultz commented composting technology has changed – with a quicker turnaround time. He recommended the compost industry be asked for input.

Meyer reported on NJ efforts to increase downstream monitoring from permitted aquatic use sites – specifically involving fluridone use in ponds and lakes. The April EQI also discussed Imprelis with Dan Kenny, RD; and the EPA Region 5 (Amy Mysz’s) project related to indoor surface screening values. EQI agreed to collect SLA standard operating procedures on clean-ups, sampling, etc. and provide the information to Mysz. An EQI questionnaire will be distributed to SLAs via AAPCO email distribution. Meyer will act as the conduit of this information to Amy Mysz. Dwinell asked when the project would make information and guidelines available to SLAs. Meyer replied, hopefully within one year. Bowman stated this is not a one-question type of issue. As an example, SLA samples are not collected against a public health standard – they are collected for enforcement purposes. Bamber asked who will answer the public health aspects relating to indoor pesticide use – especially relating to bedbugs. Liza Fleeson noted the EPA clearinghouse on bedbugs, and that ASPCRO is gathering information to fill some of the gaps. The ASPCRO information will be posted on their new website. Meyer summarized there is very little information on mitigating risk from indoor misuse and EQI is hopeful the EPA Region 5 project will help.
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 06-28-2012, 05:18 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
I've emailed with certain questions for clarification.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.com™ - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Page generated in 0.12775 seconds with 8 queries