Tree Treatment Vs Reimbursement

Ask Your Question For Free

Summary

The user sought clarification on whether suing for treatment costs for trees and reimbursement for a dying tree are distinct claims. Treatment costs cover expenses to maintain or restore tree health, while reimbursement compensates for the loss of a tree that couldnt be saved. Only the reimbursement was settled in mediation, and the treatment costs were not discussed. The user may need to address the treatment costs separately and should consult a local attorney for guidance.

Full Conversation

I want to know if the two items I sued for are two different things
Sure Dee, I'd be happy to help. Could you please provide more details about the two items you're referring to? It would help me provide a more accurate response.
I sued for TREATMENT COSTS FOR TREES. REIMBURSEMENT FOR DYING TREE
Hello Dee, it appears you're seeking clarification on whether suing for "treatment costs for trees" and "reimbursement for a dying tree" are distinct. They can be viewed as separate:
*. "Treatment costs for trees" could cover expenses incurred to maintain or restore the health of the trees.
*. "Reimbursement for a dying tree" might refer to compensation for the loss of a tree that couldn't be saved.
YES
It seems you've understood correctly. "Treatment costs for trees" and "reimbursement for a dying tree" are in****d separate claims. The first covers the costs of trying to save or restore trees, the second compensates for the loss of a tree that couldn't be saved.
ONLY THE DYING TREE WAS REFERED TO IN A MEDICATION AND SETTLED, THE TREAMENT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED
It sounds like you're saying that only the 'reimbursement for a dying tree' was addressed in mediation and settled, but not the 'treatment costs for trees'. If so, you may need to bring up the 'treatment costs for trees' separately if it wasn't included in the original settlement. However, it's important to consult with a local attorney for the best course of action.