A tree that came down on a house during the July 27 storm is, in almost every case, a covered loss under a standard Illinois homeowners policy. Wind and storm damage are exactly what that policy is built to pay for. What’s usually in question isn’t whether you’re covered. It’s how much the insurance company pays, and whether it tries to shift the blame onto something your policy leaves out.
This article walks through how a tree-on-house claim actually works in Illinois: what’s covered, why an offer can come in low, and when it’s worth bringing in a lawyer.
Is a tree falling on my house from the July 27 storm covered by insurance?
Yes. The standard homeowners policy (the HO-3) is an “all-risk” policy, meaning it covers your house against every kind of physical damage except the causes it specifically excludes. So a tree the July 27 winds knocked onto your home is a covered event.
And July 27 was, by any measure, a windstorm. The National Weather Service clocked a 104 mph gust near Monee, one of the strongest ever measured in Illinois, with straight-line winds of 80 to 105 mph tearing across southern Cook and eastern Will counties and seven confirmed tornadoes. Chicago’s emergency office logged more than 770 tree-emergency calls by 4 p.m., and Cook County issued a disaster proclamation for the storm on July 30. That paper trail matters, because it makes the covered cause of your damage nearly impossible to dispute.
Here’s the part worth understanding about who has to prove what. To get paid, you only have to show a covered loss happened: that you had an all-risk policy, that you own the property, and that something sudden and accidental damaged it. Under Illinois law that initial burden is a light one. If the insurer wants to deny the claim, the burden flips to the company: it has to prove that some exclusion in the policy applies. You don’t have to prove your loss wasn’t excluded; they have to prove it was.
Why is the insurance company’s offer so low, and can they blame it on the tree being old or rotten?
Because the most common way an insurer shrinks a tree claim is to argue the real cause wasn’t the storm at all, but something your policy doesn’t cover: a rotted or long-dead tree, or “wear and tear” on an aging roof. In Illinois, that argument does not automatically win.
The default rule here is called efficient proximate cause. In plain English, the law looks at the main cause that set the damage in motion. When a loss comes from a mix of a covered cause and an excluded one, you’re still covered if the covered cause was the dominant one that started the chain of events. If a 100-mph gust is what actually put that tree through your roof, the fact that the tree was old doesn’t erase your coverage.
Insurers know this, so many policies now contain what’s called an anti-concurrent causation clause. It’s fine print saying that if an excluded cause combines in any way with a covered cause, the company won’t pay. Illinois appellate courts have enforced that language (Bozek v. Erie Ins. Grp., 2015 IL App (2d) 150155). That’s the lever the adjuster is reaching for when they mention “wear and tear.”
But there’s a limit that works in your favor. If the storm was genuinely the whole cause and the insurer is just waving “the tree was rotten” around as a throwaway argument, that fine print may not apply at all. There’s no real combination of causes, just the storm. Proving that usually takes expert testimony capable of distinguishing storm damage from normal decay. And remember who carries the burden: the insurer has to prove its wear-and-tear exclusion; you don’t have to disprove it. (If the policy contains an exception to an exclusion, proving that exception is back on you: Wells v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2021 IL App (5th) 190460.)
The takeaway: a low offer built on “the tree was old” is often a negotiating position dressed up as a coverage decision.
Do I really need a lawyer for a tree-on-house claim, and when?
Not every claim needs one. If your insurer investigates promptly, agrees the storm caused the damage, and pays a fair amount, you may be fine handling it yourself. The time to call a policyholder attorney is when the claim goes sideways:
- The claim is denied.
- The offer is clearly too low for the damage.
- The insurer blames wear and tear or a “rotten tree” to cut the number.
- You’re being pushed to sign a release before you understand what you’re owed.
Here’s what an attorney actually changes. They keep the burden where it belongs, forcing the insurer to prove the exclusion it’s leaning on, rather than letting you shoulder it. They bring in expert testimony to show the storm, not decay, caused the loss. They file suit to break a stalemate.
That’s the work Mag Mile Law, LLC does. The firm handles first-party property claims (storm, wind, water, and roof damage), all on the policyholder’s side of the table. Partner Steven Mikuzis is both an insurance-coverage attorney and a licensed insurance producer, so he reads these claims the way the carrier does: he knows how adjusters value a loss, where they cut, and how “wear and tear” gets deployed to shrink a payout. The firm’s property-recovery record includes a $2,394,290 fire-insurance recovery, and its lawyers litigate coverage disputes across the Chicago area.
If your July 27 claim has stalled, come back low, or been denied, take two steps now. First, photograph everything and preserve proof the storm caused it before you make permanent repairs. Second, have a policyholder attorney review any offer, denial, or document the insurer asks you to sign before you accept it.
Mag Mile Law can be reached at 773-644-9593, with offices at 535 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 200, Chicago, as well as in Elmhurst and Northbrook.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Mag Mile Law, LLC. Insurance coverage turns on the exact language of your policy and the specific facts of your loss, so consult a licensed Illinois attorney about your situation.