A San Carlos family said their home insurer dropped them without warning because of issues surrounding the 500-year-old oak tree on their property. Now, they’re fighting back hoping to get the insurance back.

Among all of the foliage that Liz Heieck-Toms and her husband Will are proud to take care of in their San Carlos backyard, there is a heritage white oak tree.

“We really consider ourselves the custodians of this tree,” Liz Heieck-Toms said.

“We think it’s around 480 years old,” Will Heieck Toms added.

Over the course of their 32 years living there, they’ve worked extensively with a tree expert to maintain it.

“When we got here, this tree canopy was literally over the top of the house,” he said. “As you can see, we’ve taken probably 40-50% of this tree away.”

But the natural beauty that is the centerpiece of their yard is now the centerpiece of an insurance nightmare.

“It was a regular day, my broker sends me an email that says I’d been notified by Safeco that you’re getting a non-renewal notice due to the canopy of your tree hanging over your house and debris on your roof verified by aerial photography that they’d somehow consumed,” Will Heieck-Toms said.

He said they’ve been customers with Safeco, a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual, for 20 years. They did not receive notice of an aerial inspection, any photos to back its decision, nor were they ever warned the alleged state of their tree was putting their homeowner insurance policy in jeopardy.

“I just am discouraged and frustrated by the lack of courtesy and understanding from a company on something that is almost 500 years old,” Will said. “Come knock on my door. I’m happy to sit down and have a conversation with the company. If they want to have that right, that’s their right and I appreciate that right. I just don’t appreciate it being so unilateral in its nature.”

A company spokesperson provided CBS News Bay Area with a statement that reads in part:

“While we cannot comment on an individual customer, it’s important to fully understand the condition of a property, and advances in satellite imagery are useful to identify issues that we – and homeowners – otherwise may not know exist.”

Carmen Belber, the Executive Director of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, said it isn’t the first time and won’t be the last time she hears about an insurance company dropping a customer due to aerial surveillance.

“We are seeing exponential growth in the use of aerial technology and other technology, all of which are owned by third parties that consumers have very little access to, to price and make sales decisions about home insurance,” she said. “We are very concerned about the increasing use of these technologies because they’re not transparent. We’re pushing in Sacramento to make this information more accessible to consumers.”

Belber doesn’t dispute the fact that insurance companies do have an important right to inspect a customer’s property. However, she said it’s imperative they make judgments based upon accurate information.

“The insurance company does have the right to know the state of your property, but they also have an obligation to get that right,” she said. “It’s really not fair that insurance companies are using a point in time to make decisions that really impact a homeowner’s financial future.”

Her advice for homeowners who go through this situation is to request the photos the insurer has based their decision on.

“If it happens, they need to act quickly. Don’t assume it’ll be easy to get another policy with another company quickly. Don’t just take that decision at face value. Go back to the home insurance company, ask where they’re getting their information, correct them if they’re wrong – which happens frequently – and ask them if there is anything that you can do to keep your policy,” Belber said. “Find out what they based it on because sometimes, we do hear, that when an insurance company gets accurate information, they change their decision.”

The Toms have requested the images but hadn’t heard back from their insurer by the time of this story airing.

“We’re going to work every angle we can to get somebody to pay attention to this problem,” Will Heieck-Toms said.

“Not just for us,” his wife added.

“For everybody who’s going through the same problem that we are,” he said. “I’m going to go to the California State Commissioner, I’m going to the City of San Carlos, our tree guy gave me the name of the director of the association for tree removal people across the country.”

In the meantime, Will says it hasn’t been an easy task finding a new insurance provider, even though they don’t live in a flood or fire zone. He received a quote from a company he hadn’t previously heard of that wasn’t appealing.

“They offered the coverage of the insurance at half the amount of coverage for almost three times the price,” he said.

There always is the FAIR plan, California’s insurer of last resort. However, Belber said that really is a last resort.

“The FAIR plan has limited benefits and really high costs, so this could also be a big financial blow for homeowners,” she said.

The Toms have until December to find a new path forward.

“I feel like the insurance companies are just using things like this as an excuse because they don’t want to be insuring homes in California because of all the fires and stuff,” Liz Heieck-Toms said.

“Worst case scenario – we have to take this out – probably north of $40,000 to take this tree out,” Will Heick-Toms said. “I just plead to the insurance industry to not be so black and white. Take some consideration for the heritage of trees and the environment, and how they’re impacting that and maybe swinging the needle a little too far before they make these, what I would consider to be bureaucratic decisions.”