Public record · updated as cases resolve

Recent tree law verdicts and settlements.

What courts, juries, and insurers are actually paying when someone cuts, poisons, or clears trees they don't own. Every entry links to its public source. Amounts are as reported; these are not TreeLawLeads cases.

$7.9Mreported across 16 resolved matters
$2.5Mlargest single resolution listed
11states represented
2–3×statutory multiplier in most states
$46,000
COURT RULING

Storms v. Geraghty: four trees over a disputed line, $40,000 punitive plus restoration under RPAPL 861

Columbia County (Appellate Division, Third Dept.), NY · · 4 trees plus vegetation removed after a boundary dispute

Months after buying the adjoining parcel and arguing about where the line ran, the new owner and a companion crossed it and removed four trees and vegetation. The jury found the conduct wanton, reckless or malicious, awarded $40,000 in punitive damages against the cutter, and $3,000 against each defendant under RPAPL 861 to cover restoration; the court also quieted title to the disputed strip in the plaintiff's favor. Affirmed on appeal in May 2026. Worth noting for intake: even a four-tree case with thin compensatory proof produced a five-figure punitive award once the record showed the defendants knew the line was contested.

Defendant
New neighboring owner + the person he brought to cut
Law
RPAPL § 861; trespass; quiet title
punitive damagesboundary disputesmall tree count
$145,047
COURT RULING

NY high court: RPAPL 861 treble damages are punitive, so towns are exempt; $145,047 award reversed

Town of Lodi, Seneca County, NY · · 55 trees cut or trimmed along a town road

A town-hired crew cut or trimmed 55 trees on the Rosbaughs' land in 2010. An arbitrator found a stumpage value of $48,349 and trebled it to $145,047 under RPAPL 861, and the lower courts confirmed. In March 2025 the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute's treble multiplier is punitive in nature and therefore cannot be assessed against a municipality. Compensatory elements (remediation cost, value of the wood) survive. Takeaway for intake: the 3× multiplier is strongest against private defendants — neighbors, developers, contractors, loggers — not towns.

Defendant
Town of Lodi (via tree-service contractor)
Law
RPAPL § 861 (treble damages)
treble damagesmunicipal defendantpractice note
$80,000+
COURT RULING

Indiana: logger who crossed a marked line pays $80,000+ for three dozen hardwoods, affirmed on appeal

Morgan County (Indiana Court of Appeals), IN · · More than three dozen hardwood trees on 15 wooded acres

The owners had walked the logger to the metal boundary posts before the neighbor's harvest began; he crossed them anyway and kept cutting after being caught. The trial court awarded both the timber's value and the cost to remediate the damaged woodland, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the logger responsible for his crews under the non-delegable duty in the Timber Buyers Act. The court declined treble damages, so the $80,000 is single value plus cleanup. Useful benchmark for rural logging-trespass files.

Defendant
Logging contractor hired by the neighbor
Law
Indiana Timber Buyers Act, I.C. 25-36-5; non-delegable duty
timber theftlogger liabletimber value + remediation
$107,256
COURT RULING

Kallis v. Sones: one boundary-line Aleppo pine, $53,628 doubled to $107,256

Los Angeles County (Court of Appeal), CA · · One 70-ft Aleppo pine straddling the property line

The neighbors cut down a shared boundary pine they believed was theirs and a hazard. Because the cutting was not willful, treble and punitive damages were off the table, but the trial court still valued the tree at $53,628 on arborist testimony and doubled it under § 3346. The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting the argument that damages should be pro-rated by how much trunk sat on each side. Still the go-to California citation for what a single mature tree is worth.

Defendant
Neighboring homeowners
Law
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 834, 3346(a) (double damages)
As reported by
FindLaw (opinion) ↗
landmarkboundary treedouble damagessingle tree
$150,000
COURT RULING

Caciopoli v. Lebowitz: $150,000 for trees cut by a neighbor's tree service, measured by lost property value

Guilford, New Haven County (Connecticut Supreme Court), CT · · A wooded buffer between two homes, including mature trees

The defendant's tree service cleared a wooded strip that turned out to be on the plaintiff's side of the line. Because the cutting was a mistake, the statute's treble multiplier would have applied only to timber value; the plaintiff instead proved that his lot lost $150,000 in market value, and the Supreme Court held that § 52-560 does not displace that common-law measure. The case is why Connecticut claimants get to choose between three times the timber value and the drop in what their property is worth.

Defendant
Neighbor who hired a tree service believing the trees were his
Law
C.G.S. § 52-560; common-law trespass (diminution in value)
As reported by
FindLaw (opinion) ↗
landmarkdiminution in valuemistaken boundary
$2.2M → $186K
COURT RULING

Blust v. Lamar Advertising: billboard crew clears 34 trees; $2.2M punitive verdict, $66,000 after two appeals

Montgomery County (Ohio Court of Appeals), OH · · 34 wild-growing trees on a farm, 17 over 3 in. diameter

To clear sight lines to a new billboard, the company's agent had 34 trees removed from the neighboring farm despite repeated warnings. The jury gave $32,000 compensatory and $2,245,105 punitive; the trial judge cut the punitive award to $550,000, the 2004 appeal sent it back as still disproportionate, and on remand it landed at $66,000 plus $88,250 in attorney fees, restored in 2009. Final recovery about $186,000 on $32,000 of tree value. The cautionary half of the punitive-damages story: juries punish corporate defendants, appellate courts trim it, and fee-shifting is what makes the case pay.

Defendant
Billboard company's leasing agent + tree service
Law
Trespass; punitive damages; attorney fees
punitive damagescorporate defendantignored warnings

Disclaimer. TreeLawLeads was not involved in any matter listed and has no affiliation with the parties, counsel, or publications cited. Compiled from news reports, court opinions, and counsel announcements; figures are as reported by the linked source and may include settlements whose full terms are confidential, penalties assessed by governments, and claims still pending. None of these are TreeLawLeads matters. Not legal advice, and not a prediction of what any other case is worth; verify the controlling statute and current status before relying on any entry. Know of a resolution we're missing? Send us the source.

What these numbers have in common

Every large result above rests on the same three things we screen for before a case reaches a firm: a survey or record that fixes ownership, an arborist's per-tree valuation, and a statute that multiplies it. The defendants who pay most are contractors, developers, and neighbors acting through a crew — insured, and on the wrong side of a line they were told about.

Per-tree appraisal drives it

$90,000 per mature tree in Maryland; $95,000 for one coast live oak in Oakland. Multiply by the count.

Willfulness unlocks the multiplier

Warnings ignored, lines flagged, notes left in mailboxes — that record is what turns 1× into 3×.

Insurers write the checks

Tree services, landscapers, and developers carry liability coverage. Most of the settlements above were paid by a carrier.

Cases with this fact pattern are on the shelf now.

Leave your email — we'll follow up within one business day with what's open in your states.

By submitting, you confirm you are contacting us on behalf of a law firm and agree that TreeLawLeads may contact you by email and, if you provide a number, by phone or text about your inquiry and our services. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Terms and Privacy Policy.