Fallen branch causes $5,000 in car damages, city denies claim

The tree branch that fell on June 6, 2025 and cracked the tail light of an Edmonton man's car. (Submitted: Randy Boucher)

An Edmonton man is left to pay part of his car’s repairs out of pocket after the city denied liability for a fallen tree branch, which he worries sets a bad precedent for other residents.

Although he’s able to pay the $1,000 insurance deductible to repair his car, Randy Boucher said his experience with submitting an appeal through the city left him with a “sour taste” in his mouth.

• Download the CTV News App for breaking news alerts on all the top Edmonton stories

Late at night on June 6, Boucher’s car was parked in its usual spot outside his apartment complex underneath a tree on the corner of 47 Street and 118 Avenue when a tree branch fell and struck it.

The next day, Boucher inspected his Subaru in the daylight to find not just paint scratches, but that his trunk had been shifted by the weight of the branch and, upon impact, put a hole in his tail light. The spoiler had also buckled into where it connects to the trunk.

“The vehicle itself is still drivable. I sealed the cracked tail lights with duct tape so that no moisture can get in … I’m reluctant to use the truck, but it is what it is,” he said.

Despite mostly aesthetic repairs needed, he was quoted $5,000 by every mechanic he went to, which insurance would cover if Boucher paid the $1,000 deductible.

Boucher submitted a 311 claim with the city as soon as possible and requested coverage for the cost of the deductible.

He said they denied it because there had been a storm that might have damaged the tree around the end of May. He appealed the decision.

“If this [storm] was over eight days ago, why didn’t you guys come back and look at the trees?” he said.

The city denied the appeal again, according to Boucher, saying that a tree inspection had been done in the area on April 23 and found that the tree in question was in healthy condition.

“So I emailed them back, and I said, ‘Well, that doesn’t make any sense,’” he said. “If there was severe weather … your inspection doesn’t mean a thing. It’s irrelevant.”

City liability

Boucher argues that the city is contradicting its monitoring and maintenance processes by relying on a tree assessment that was no longer relevant after a massive storm.

The city, however, says it’s well within its rights to deny claims of damage that they reasonably couldn’t have foreseen.

In an emailed statement, the city told CTV News Edmonton that every claim for coverage that comes through is investigated thoroughly and that submission of a claim never guarantees compensation.

“When considering property damage claims relating to trees or branches, our adjusters will evaluate whether the city knew or ought to have known about a hazard or danger,” it read.

“Sometimes property damage from trees is not foreseeable – for example, when branches fall during major wind events or where a tree assessment has not previously identified a hazard.”

The city also said that unsuccessful complainants can pursue a claim under their own insurance policy.

Boucher said that although insurance is on his side, they’re waiting for him to sort out coverage with the city.

“They just said, ‘If you want, we can always try to pursue it afterwards,’ and I said ‘No, I’ll pursue it myself first,’” he said.

As of now, though, Boucher said he’s going to have to eat the cost of the car’s damage. While it’s not the end of the world, he said, it doesn’t bode well for other residents who may fall victim to Edmonton’s volatile weather.

“If this is how they’re going to treat one incident, what’s the point of even going to them for any problems?”