An Act relative to preventing home insurers from forcing tree removal

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Amy Sangiolo and 1 co-sponsor

Prohibits home insurers from forcing tree removal if a certified arborist says the tree is not a hazard, protecting homeowners and elevating arborist input in decisions.

Quick overview

Bill number: House Docket No. 1451 (HD 1451)

Title: An Act relative to preventing home insurers from forcing tree removal

Introduced / Filed: Various dates shown (initial filing January 15, 2025; later petition dates listed). The bill appears in the 194th Massachusetts General Court (2025-2026).

Sponsor(s): Representative Amy Mah Sangiolo (primary) with co-sponsors including Bud L. Williams and others.

Status: Proposed bill (legislative stage not specified beyond introduction)

Purpose and intent

The bill seeks to limit a home insurer’s ability to require the removal of trees on a homeowner’s property when a certified arborist has determined that the tree is not a hazard. The core aim is to reduce unnecessary tree removal driven by insurance considerations, provided an arborist confirms no hazard to the property.

Key provisions

Addition to law: The bill would add a new provision to Chapter 175 of the General Laws.

New prohibition (Section 231): “A company shall not require the removal of a tree from the property of a holder of a homeowners insurance policy if a certified arborist has determined the tree is not a hazard to the property.”

This creates a clear condition under which insurers cannot compel removal: the tree must be deemed non-hazardous by a certified arborist.

Who is affected

Homeowners with homeowners insurance policies would gain protection against mandatory tree removal when an arborist certifies non-hazard.

Home insurers would be restricted from requiring removal in the stated non-hazard scenario, potentially influencing underwriting practices and post-loss or maintenance-related decisions.

Certified arborists would play a central role as the arbiter of whether a tree is a hazard, effectively becoming a key factor in insurer decisions.

Procedural and timeline aspects

The text provided does not specify a date for when the provision would take effect or any enforcement mechanisms (penalties, remedies, or dispute resolution) beyond the prohibitory clause.

The bill is part of the 194th Massachusetts General Court (2025-2026) and is presented by House members with a sponsor list, indicating its introduction stage. Any further action (committee referrals, amendments, votes) would follow standard legislative procedures.

Potential impact and considerations

May reduce unnecessary tree removal, protecting property aesthetics and environmental value while ensuring safety remains the focus when an arborist disagrees with removal.

Could lead to increased involvement of certified arborists in insurance-related decisions and potential disputes over arborist qualifications or hazard determinations.

Insurers and homeowners may need to adjust processes for documenting arborist assessments and communicating decisions.

If you’d like, I can add a section on possible enforcement options or compare this bill to similar proposals in other states.

Bill