Case Background

On June 14, 2021, a large dead tree collapsed onto a residential property at 60 Edgehill Way in San Francisco, California. The property was owned by Florence Alberta and insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by State Farm General Insurance Company. Adjacent to the property stood a public trail and park entrance, marked by a sign reading “San Francisco Recreation & Parks Welcomes You.” The tree, which stood next to this sign, had visibly decayed before the incident.

Cause

Starting in late 2019, Ms. Alberta’s family and concerned neighbors repeatedly alerted the City and County of San Francisco about the tree’s dangerous condition. Despite multiple warnings, the City failed to act. It initially disclaimed ownership of the tree, even though its signage stood next to it. On November 20, 2020, the City issued a Notice to Abate the dangerous tree. However, no immediate action followed. On May 3, 2021, the City Attorney’s Office sent a letter to the alleged property owners, threatening to remove the tree and pursue costs. Despite this notice, the tree remained standing. Just over two months later, it fell, causing substantial property damage.

Injury

The falling tree caused severe damage to Ms. Alberta’s home. The impact affected structural components and left the property uninhabitable. Ms. Alberta filed an insurance claim for the damage.

Damages

State Farm reviewed the claim and paid for the covered damages resulting from the fallen tree. The company incurred a financial loss of $434,761.58. It now seeks recovery through subrogation.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff(s): State Farm General Insurance Company

• Counsel for Plaintiff: Darrel Kalai’puna Yasutake

• Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco | Does 1 to 25, Inclusive

• Counsel for Defendants: Hong Tuyet Le

Claims

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, alleges a single count of General Negligence. State Farm asserts that the City and unnamed Doe defendants breached their duty of care by failing to remove the hazardous tree in a timely and diligent manner, even after being notified. State Farm claims the defendants’ inaction directly caused the damage and seeks compensation for the subrogated amount, plus costs and prejudgment interest.

Defense

The City and County of San Francisco raised a broad array of defenses to seek dismissal or limitation of liability. Procedurally, it argued that the complaint was defective—citing failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, and noncompliance with governmental-claim presentation deadlines. Substantively, the City invoked doctrines like assumption of risk, estoppel, waiver, and comparative negligence, asserting that the plaintiffs either contributed to their own harm or are barred from recovery altogether.

On the factual and legal merits, San Francisco denied any responsibility for a dangerous condition, arguing it neither created nor had notice of any hazard. It further claimed the condition was open and obvious, trivial, or not legally dangerous, and that any injuries stemmed from third parties or unforeseeable events. Statutory immunities under the California Tort Claims Act were also invoked, including protections for public property and discretionary acts. Additionally, the City raised equitable defenses such as necessity and unclean hands, and contended the lawsuit was frivolous, warranting sanctions and dismissal with prejudice.

Settlement

On September 19, 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, bringing the litigation to a close without a trial. The terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed, and there was no admission of liability by the City and County of San Francisco. By resolving the matter privately, both sides avoided prolonged litigation and the uncertainties of trial, signaling a mutual decision to move forward without further court involvement.

Court Documents

Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com