Mass Wasting

see also free on-line course When Good Rivers Turn Bad (contents)
see also contents of entire Earth and Beyond Course
 
Gravity
The Role of Water 
Mass-Wasting Processes
Slumps
Rockfall and Debris Falls
Sediment Flows
Slurry Flows 
Solifuction
Granular Flows
Creep
Debris Avalanches
Rock Glaciers
Exceptional Precipitation
Submarine Slope Failures
Mass-Wasting in Cold Climates
Triggering of Mass-Wasting Events 
Volcanic Eruptions
Submarine Slope Failures

 adapted to HTML from lecture notes of Prof. Stephen A. Nelson Tulane University

Mass-wasting is the down-slope movement of Regolith (loose uncemented mixture of

soil and rock particles that covers the Earth's surface) by the force of gravity without
the aid of a transporting medium such as water, ice, or wind. Still, as we shall see,
water plays a key role.

Mass-wasting is part of a continuum of erosional processes between weathering and

stream transport. Mass-wasting causes regolith to move down-slope where sooner or
later the loose particles will be picked up by another transporting agent and eventually
moved to a site of deposition such as an ocean basin or lake bed.

In order for regolith to move in a mass wasting process it must be on a slope, since
gravity will only cause motion if the material is on a slope.

Gravity
Gravity is a force that acts everywhere on the Earth's surface, pulling everything in a
direction toward the center of the Earth. On a flat surface, parallel to the Earth's surface the
force of gravity acts downward. So long as the material remains on the flat surface it will
not move under the force of gravity.

On a slope, the force of gravity can be resolved into two components: a component acting
perpendicular to the slope, and a component acting tangential to the slope.

 The perpendicular component of gravity, gp, helps to hold the object in place on the
slope.

 
 The tangential component of gravity, gt, causes a shear stress parallel to the slope and
helps to move the object in the down-slope direction.

 On a steeper slope, the shear stress or tangential component of

gravity, gt, increases, and the perpendicular component of gravity, gp,
decreases.

 
  Another force resisting movement down the slope is grouped under the
term shear strength and includes frictional resistance and cohesion
among the particles that make up the object.

 When the sheer stress becomes greater than the combination of forces
holding the object on the slope, the object will move down-slope. 

  Thus, down-slope movement is favored by steeper slope angles (increasing the shear
stress) and anything that reduces the shear strength (such as lowering the cohesion among
the particles or lowering the frictional resistance. 
 

The Role of Water

Although water is not directly involved as the transporting medium in mass-wasting
processes, it does play an important role. Think about building a sandcastle on the
beach. If the sand is totally dry, it is impossible to build a pile of sand with a steep
face like a castle wall. If the sand is somewhat wet, however, one can build a vertical
wall. If the sand is too wet, then it flows like a fluid and cannot remain in position as
a wall.

Dry unconsolidated grains will form a pile with a slope angle determined by the
angle of repose. The angle of repose is the steepest angle at which a pile of
unconsolidated grains remains stable, and is controlled by the frictional contact
between the grains. In general, for dry materials the angle of repose increases
with increasing grain size, but usually lies between about 30 and 37 degrees. 
 Slightly wet unconsolidated materials exhibit a very high angle of repose
because surface tension between the water and the grains tends to hold the
grains in place. 

When the material becomes saturated with water, the angle of repose is
reduced to very small values and the material tends to flow like a fluid. This is
because the water gets between the grains and eliminates grain to grain
frictional contact. 
  

Mass-Wasting Processes

The down-slope movement of material, whether it be bedrock, regolith, or a mixture of

these, is commonly referred to as a landslide. All of these processes generally grade into
one another, so classification of mass-wasting processes is somewhat difficult. We will use
the classification used by your textbook, which divides mass wasting processes into two
broad categories and further subdivides these categories. 
Slope Failures- a sudden failure of the slope resulting in transport of debris
down hill by sliding, rolling, falling, or slumping.
Sediment Flows- debris flows down hill mixed with water or air.

Slope Failures

Slumps - types of slides wherein downward rotation of rock or regolith occurs along a
curved surface. The upper surface of each slump block remains relatively undisturbed, as do
the individual blocks. Slumps leave arcuate scars or depressions on the hill slope. Heavy
rains or earthquakes usually trigger slumps.

 
Rock Falls and Debris Falls - Rock falls occur when a piece of rock on a steep
slope becomes dislodged and falls down the slope. Debris falls are similar,
except they involve a mixture of soil, regolith, and rocks. A rock fall may be a
single rock, or a mass of rocks, and the falling rocks can dislodge other rocks as
they collide with the cliff. At the base of most cliffs is an accumulation of fallen
material termed talus. The slope of the talus is controlled by the angle of repose
for the size of the material. Since talus results from falling large rocks or masses
of debris the angle of repose is usually greater than it would be for sand. 
  
 Rock Slides and Debris Slides - Rock slides and debris slides result when rocks
or debris slide down a pre-existing surface, such as a bedding plane or joint
surface. Piles of talus are common at the base of a rock slide or debris slide. 
 

Sediment Flows

Sediment flows occur when sufficient force is applied to rocks and regolith that they
begin to flow down slope. A sediment flow is a mixture of rock, regolith with some
water. They can be broken into two types depending on the amount of water
present.
Slurry Flows- are sediment flows that contain between about 20 and 40%
water. As the water content increases above about 40% slurry flows grade
into streams. 
Granular Flows - are sediment flows that contain between 20 and 0% water.
Note that granular flows are possible with little or no water. Fluid-like
behavior is given these flows by mixing with air.
 Each of these classes of sediment flows can be further subdivided on the basis of the
velocity at which flowage occurs. 
 

Slurry Flows

 Solifluction - flowage at rates measured on the order of centimeters

per year of regolith containing water. Solifluction produces distinctive
lobes on hill slopes . These occur in areas where the soil remains
saturated with water for long periods of time.
 Debris Flows-these occur at higher velocities than solifluction, and
often result from heavy rains causing saturation of the soil and regolith
with water. They sometimes start with slumps and then flow down hill
forming to lobes with an irregular surface consisting of ridges and
furrows.
 Mudflows- a highly fluid, high velocity mixture of sediment and water
that has a consistency of wet concrete. These usually result from
heavy rains in areas where there is an abundance of unconsolidated
sediment that can be picked up by streams. Thus after a heavy rain
streams can turn into mudflows as they pick up more and more loose
sediment. Mudflows can travel for long distances over gently sloping
 stream beds. Because of their high velocity and long distance of travel
they are potentially very dangerous.

Granular Flows

 Creep- the very slow, usually continuous movement of regolith down

slope. Creep occurs on almost all slopes, but the rates vary. Evidence
for creep is often seen in bent trees, offsets in roads and fences, and
inclined utility poles .
 Earthflows - are usually associated with heavy rains and move at
velocities between several cm/yr and 110s of m/day. They usually
remain active for long periods of time. They generally tend to be
narrow tongue-like features that begin at a scarp or small cliff
 Grain Flows - usually form in relatively dry material, such as a sand
dune, on a steep slope. A small disturbance sends the dry
unconsolidated grains moving rapidly down slope.
 Debris Avalanches - These are very high velocity flows of large volume
mixtures of rock and regolith that result from complete collapse of a
mountainous slope. They move down slope and then can travel for
considerable distances along relatively gentle slopes. They are often
triggered by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Mass-Wasting in Cold Climates

Mass-wasting in cold climates is governed by the fact that water is frozen as ice
during long periods of the year. Ice, although it is solid, does have the ability to flow,
and freezing and thawing cycles can also contribute to movement.

o Frost Heaving - this process is large contributor to creep in cold climates.

When water saturated soils freeze, they expand, pushing rocks and boulders on the
surface upward perpendicular to the slope. When the soil thaws, the boulders move
down vertically resulting in a net down slope movement.

o Gelifluction - Similar to solifluction, this process occurs when the upper layers
of soil thaw during the warmer months resulting in water saturated soil that
moves down slope.

o Rock Glaciers - a lobe of ice-cemented rock debris (mostly rocks with ice
between the blocks) that slowly moves downhill
Subaqueous Mass-Wasting

Mass wasting processes also occur on steep slopes in the ocean basins. A slope
failure can occur due to over-accumulation of sediment on slope or in a
submarine canyon, or could occur as a result of a shock like an earthquake.
Slumps, debris flows, and landslides are common.

Triggering of Mass-Wasting Events

 A mass-wasting event can occur any time a slope becomes unstable. Sometimes, as
in the case of creep or solifluction, the slope is unstable all of the time, and the
process is continuous. But other times, triggering events can occur that cause a
sudden instability to occur.

Shocks - A sudden shock, such as an earthquake may trigger a slope

instability. Minor shocks like heavy trucks rambling down the road, trees
blowing in the wind, or man made explosions can also trigger mass-wasting
events.
 
Slope Modification - modification of slope either by humans or by natural
causes can result in changing the slope angle so that it is no longer at
the angle of repose. A mass-wasting event can then restore the slope to
its angle of repose. 
 

Undercutting - streams eroding their banks or surf action along a coast can
undercut a slope making it unstable.
 Exceptional Precipitation - heavy rains can saturate regolith reducing grain to
grain contact and reducing the angle of repose, thus triggering a mass-wasting
event.

Volcanic Eruptions - produce shocks like explosions and earthquakes. They can
also cause snow to melt or empty crater lakes, rapidly releasing large amounts
of water that can be mixed with regolith to reduce grain to grain contact and
result in debris flows, mudflows, and landslides. 
 

Submarine Slope Failures - these can be caused by rapid deposition of sediment

that does not allow water trapped between grains to escape, or by generation of
methane gas from the decay of organic material, which increases pressure
between unconsolidated grains and thus reduces grain to grain contact.

Natural sources of erosion

Running water. Everywhere on the planet, running water continuously reshapes the land by carrying soil
and debris steadily downslope. As the sediment and other eroded materials are carried along the
bottoms of streams and rivers, they scour away the bedrock underneath, eventually carving deep gorges
or openings. A classic example of the erosive power of running water over a great period of time is the
Grand Canyon of the Colorado River.

Rain falling on dry land also can result in erosion. When raindrops strike bare ground that is not
protected by vegetation, they loosen particles of soil, spattering them in all directions. During heavy
rains on sloped surfaces, the dislodged soil is carried off in a flow of water.
Force Majeure Claims

The recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region, flooding in the Midwest, and other natural disasters have
resulted in an increase of force majeure claims for the construction industry and have raised interesting
and complex issues relative to force majeure clauses.  

In general terms, force majeure claims essentially free both parties to a construction contract from
liability or obligation for failure to perform in the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as “acts of
God” or occurrences outside the control of the parties. Depending on the contract language, force
majeure events can include unusually severe weather, labor strikes, natural disasters, or governmental
actions/changes in law. Under most construction contracts, force majeure events are generally not
considered to be compensable, meaning neither party is entitled to compensation as a result of the
impact of the force majeure event. However, force majeure events are typically excusable delays and
the contract completion date is extended for a period equal to the force majeure impact period.

Force majeure claims become complicated when there is a major event that not only directly impacts
the work but also creates potentially changed working conditions after work resumes. In these cases,
several questions regarding the contractual language with respect to allowable project extensions,
responsibility for mitigating the event’s impacts, as well as the costs associated with mitigation efforts
create complications when preparing or analyzing force majeure claims. The primary challenges
associated with complex force majeure claims relate to continued impacts and mitigation
responsibilities. Certain continued impacts may result from severe natural disasters, including reduced
labor force and reduced labor productivity. Additionally, the complex issue of defining a party’s
responsibility to mitigate the event’s immediate and continuing impacts often becomes a point of
contention. The parties are often forced to consider the costs to mitigate versus the potential
commercial impracticability or impossibility.

Interface Consulting has extensive experience assisting owners, contractors, and sureties relative to
force majeure claims. Our construction claims consultants assist in the quantification of
damages, schedule delays, accelerations, and/or productivity impacts, as well as provide advisory
services to facilitate the timely resolution of force majeure claims.
Hydrologist's report

In some cases, the cause of the damage is clear, such as when water from a fast flowing river breaks its
banks and enters a home built on the bank. The subsequent damage is most likely flood damage, not
storm or rain water damage.

However, where the cause is less clear because of a combination of events, an expert report, normally
provided by a hydrologist, may assist to establish whether the origin of the water is flood water or rain
water, and therefore whether or not the damage is covered by the policy.

FOS takes into account a hydrologist's report to assess issues such as:

 the amount of rainfall that fell prior to the time when a creek or river broke its banks,

 where the creek/river broke its banks, and

 the path the flood water took from the time it broke its banks until it reached the home.

In some cases FOS, with the agreement of the parties, will appoint an independent hydrologist to report
on the damage.

Often it is necessary for FOS to attend the location with the parties and hydrologists to gain a complete
picture of the events leading to the claim.

Other information

Other information FOS would consider in assessing the source of the water depends on the facts of a
case but could include:

 photo or video footage establishing that rain water entered the home, or

 eye witness accounts.

It is up to both parties to provide information about the source of the flooding so an assessment can be
made by FOS based on all of the available information.

FOS may make additional inquiries of both the FSP and the insured in order to satisfy itself as to whether
the events fall within the policy or within one of the exclusions of the policy.

Only when FOS is satisfied it is in a position to make a determination will a written determination be
made.
A Practical Guide to Insurance Claims

Introduction

The basic concept of construction insurance is simple. Insurance transfers the risk of defined unforeseen
events from the contractor to its insurers.

However, a combination of poor drafting, a failure to ensure that the insurance contract reflects the
construction contract and an increasingly complex legal background has often resulted in construction
insurance claims becoming something of a mystery. This article attempts to solve that mystery and
provides a simple practical approach to identify valid insurance claims.

This article is of particular relevance to insolvency practitioners who are required to review the merits of
construction insurance claims, to contractors and to those involved in the insurance industry.

The Contract

The starting point is the insurance contract(1). It sounds a little obvious, but an insurance contract is
exactly that - a contract. It is therefore generally subject to normal contract law principles(2). The words
used should generally be given their ordinary meaning and policies are increasingly interpreted in the
light of their commercial objectives.

However a little caution is required when reviewing any policy. This is because:

1. the language used is often very stylized and therefore difficult;

2. certain words used might have a specific or legal meaning; and

3. terms, which might otherwise have a normal meaning, may be expressly defined in the policy;
Any express definitions will prevail.

A Typical Insuring Clause

The exact scope of what is covered by a policy will vary from contract to contract and in practice there is
no standard construction insurance policy. The following though is what might be described as a fairly
typical insuring clause for the construction phase of a project used in Hong Kong:

The Insurers shall indemnify the Insured in respect of loss of or damage to the Insured Property described
in the Schedule whilst at Site during the Period of Insurance arising from any cause whatsoever not
hereinafter excluded.

The use of certain phrases, such as ‘from any cause whatsoever’ and ‘in respect of’ suggests that the
policy provides wide coverage which is to the benefit of the contractor. The burden of proof will also
assist the contractor. This is because it is the contractor who has the burden of proving that his claim
falls within the fairly wide words of the insuring clause but it is the insurer who bears the burden of
proving that an exception applies(3). It is common for the exceptions to be more precisely drafted.

However there are two main points that act as limitations on the extent of the insurance cover:

1. The insuring clause set out above expressly covers only loss and damage - it does not cover, for
example, defects - this is discussed in detail below.

2. The policy does not cover any matter which is "not hereinafter excluded" and it is the detail of
the exclusions, which must be reviewed carefully.

Causes

The starting point with any insurance claim is to identify the cause of the loss. This is sometimes harder
that it seems as any particular loss might have more than one cause. For instance, assume that some
electrical components, which have been delivered to site but not yet installed, are damaged by a
particularly heavy storm, rain water from which has managed to seep into the building. Is the cause of
the damage, water or the storm? The policy might respond differently to both. Further is it possible that
the damage was caused by a failure to properly protect the components? The true cause of the loss for
the purposes of an insurance claim is not the last cause but the dominant or effective cause (4).

Where there are two causes and it is not possible to identify a single dominant cause, the loss will be
covered by the policy if one of the causes is insured(5). However if one cause is expressly covered and
the other is expressly excluded, the loss will be excluded(6).

On a practical level, it is vital to ensure that the cause of the loss can be identified and objectively
proved. In construction cases, this might require expert evidence. If so, the earlier this is obtained, the
better. Do not leave it until litigation has started before instructing an expert. The submission of a good
expert report could in itself convince insurers to pay the claim and the costs of litigation avoided.

What is Covered?

As we have already seen, construction insurance policies typically cover loss of or damage to the Insured
Property. Loss and damage should be considered separately.

Loss

Although the word ‘loss’ can have a wide meaning and can cover financial loss or loss of use, generally
‘loss of the Insured Property’ will mean physical loss in the sense that part of the Insured Property that
was physically present, is not now. Again, whether loss has a wider meaning will depend upon the exact
words of the insuring clause.

Sometimes the word ‘loss’ is used in one sense for the insuring clause covering the construction period
and used in a different sense for the insuring clause covering the defects liability or maintenance period.

Damage or Defect
Whether the Insured Property can be considered ‘damaged’ or ‘defective’ is one of the main areas of
dispute under construction insurance policies.

As the Court of Appeal explained in Skanska v Egger(7), physical loss and damage is to be distinguished
from defects in design, work, workmanship, materials and goods for which the contractor is expressly
responsible for under the contract.

Skanska attempted to argue that the obligation on Egger to insure the Works,

‘against all loss and damage from whatever cause for which the Contractor is responsible under the
contract’

extended to an obligation to insure for damage caused by defects in the floor slab. The court considered
the nature of the construction contract and the commercial purpose of the insurance and found against
Skanska. The court held that the obligation to insure under the contract in question only required Egger
to insure for accidents and mishaps on site (ie damage) which would normally fall to the contractor to
repair under the general obligation to take care of the works. It did not extend to an obligation to insure
for defects.

Exclusions

Generally insurers include a specific exclusion in insurance contracts which seek to exclude defects in
design, materials and workmanship. These exclusions need to be drafted and reviewed carefully,
particularly where, as is regularly the case, the extent of the exclusions themselves is limited or subject
to further exceptions. For instance, the defective workmanship exclusion could be worded to exclude
defective works but not damage to other parts of the Insured Property caused by defective
workmanship. Further questions could remain as to whether loss or damage caused by other categories
of defects, such as defects in the specification are included or excluded.

The fact that insurance contracts allow claims resulting from defects which causes damage to other
parts of the Insured Property has lead to arguments, which have divided the works into smaller and
smaller parts. Some of these arguments have been successful(8). However the courts have warned
against the artificial division of parts of the works(9) and the contractors’ arguments have taken a
serious dent with the case ofBacardi-Martini Beverages Ltd v Thomas Hardy Packaging Ltd (10).
Although this is not a construction case, the principles are generally applicable.

In the  Bacardi  case, Bacardi had subcontracted the bottling of Bacardi Breezers to Thomas Hardy.
Bacardi supplied most of the constituent ingredients, although Thomas Hardy was required to supply
CO2, which it bought from Messer. Unfortunately Messer supplied CO2 contaminated with benzene,
which was inadvertently introduced into the Bacardi Breezers. Once the contamination was discovered,
the drinks were recalled and losses in excess of GBP 2 million were sustained.

The contract between Thomas Hardy and Messer included a limitation of liability clause which sought to
limit Messer’s liability for physical damage to property to GBP 500,000. In an action for breach of
contract, Messer attempted to rely on the exclusion clause by arguing that the introduction of benzene
damaged the concentrate mixture. The English Court of Appeal decided that the exclusion clauses did
not apply. The court stated that although it might be possible to speak of the mix of Bacardi concentrate
as having been damaged by being admixed with the CO2 contaminated with benzene, the more natural
view is that the mix of concentrate and water ceased to exist and the finished product came into
existence at the moment of such admixture. What resulted was not damaged concentrate and water but
a defective new product.

The Bacardi  case could be subject to criticism. For instance, what would the position be if a separate
ingredient was added to the concentrate purely by mistake or what if the concentrate was deliberately
contaminated and the contamination was discovered prior to the completion of the manufacturing
process?

However the Skanska and Bacardi cases can be seen to evidence a trend. These cases in effect apply the
reasoning in Murphy v Brentwood(11), in which the House of Lords decided against an application of the
complex structure theory – ie that one part of a building could be damaged by another part.

For insurance claims, until the trend established by the Bacardi case is reversed, in order to establish a
claim for damage to property caused by a defect, claimants should ensure that they can identify a clear
demarcation between the defective property and the damaged property.

1. The phrase insurance policy will be used in this article to mean the contract, but it should be
remembered that other documents are likely to comprise the whole contract and at the very
least, it will be necessary to review the policy with any schedules and endorsements.

2. Drinkwater v Corp of London Assurance (1767) 2 Wils 363

3. Hercules Ins Co v Hunter (1836) 14 S. 1137

4. Bovis Construction Co v Commercial Union Assce Co [2001] Lloyds Rep 416

5. Miss Jay Jay [1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 32

6. Wayne Tank and Pump Co v Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation[1974] QB 57

7. [2002] BLR 236

8. see Graham Evans v Vanguard insurance Co Ltd (1986) 4 ANZ Ins Case

9. see Skanska v Egger [2002] BLR 238 para 33

10. [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 379

11. [191] AC 93

This article contains general information only and does not constitute advice on any specific legal matter.
If you require advice on any specific legal problem then please contact us.
Nick Longley, Head of Construction & Insurance
Tanner De Witt

nicholaslongley@tannerdewitt.com
www.tannerdewitt.com 

Back to top
After a careful visual assessment of the building and the damaged areas, we will report on our findings
and help you to develop an appropriate course of action for remediation of the problem areas. The
scope of the remediation will depend largely on the findings of the visual assessment. If microbial
contamination is suspected from visual indicators or occupant symptoms, we will develop hypotheses
from our initial assessments and develop a sampling strategy to locate the sources of the contamination
and the pathways by which they are finding their way to the occupants. You can read more on
our microbial page. If the water source has been active for some period of time, there is also the
potential for structural or building material damage which will need to be addressed. It is important that
you protect your interests when dealing with a water damage claim to your insurance company. You will
want to assure that all of the damage has been documented and the the problems are corrected
properly and fully. In some cases, extensive damage can be present with only limited visual indicators.

After a careful visual assessment of the damage, air or other sampling may not be necessary. However,
your insurer may want to have samples taken (surface and air) to confirm the level of contamination. It
is suggested that your consultant be present when this sampling is performed for your insurer to assure
that proper methodologies are used.  

See Sample Water Damage Report

Thermography

For those cases where the moisture damage may not be readily visible, C.L.I.  uses thermography as a
tool to aid in locating thermal anomalies which could indicate leakage. Thermography gives us the ability
to see what the eye can't see. We can often pinpoint the source of the leakage using state of the art
electronic equipment which saves time and money on repair costs.

If your building has experienced water damage, using thermography can aid (further investigation is
required to verify moisture) in assuring that the cleanup and drying process is performed properly and
that those areas requiring immediate attention are dealt with first. This reduces opportunity for
microbial contamination to begin and again reduces overall cleanup costs. In cases where mold
contamination is suspected, the first order of business is tracking down the moisture sources that are
creating the conditions favorable to it's amplification. Infrared imaging is our tool of choice for such
projects. Companies that offer to kill, treat or seal the mold and do not mention dealing with the
conditions which created the problem in the first place may not be doing a job that will last. These
companies offer guarantees, etc. but there are several good questions you should ask before signing on
for such a remediation...

I. If you are going to kill the mold, is there a guarantee that dead mold spores will not affect my
health?

II. Does the guarantee cover the moisture which allowed the mold to amplify?

III. Do you have EPA registered products proven to be safe for such applications?
IV. What claims are you making for the products you are using to kill, seal or treat the mold? Will
you put the claims in writing?

V. Does your company employ licensed applicators?

Property Damage from Soil and Geological Hazards:

Expansive Soils

Expansive soils are the second leading cause of property damage. Expansive soil swells when wet and
then shrinks when dry. The pressure that expansive soil can exert can be very destructive. The pressure
produced can reach as much as 15,000 pounds per square foot which is plenty strong to crack
driveways, floors, and even foundations. Builders and developers should have previous knowledge as to
whether or not their development is on expansive soil and with this knowledge can build accordingly.
Unfortunately, some builders or developers will knowingly use construction methods that are cheaper
and do not take into account potential damage that may be caused by expansive soil. These are the
scenarios where homebuyers are most adversity affected.

Collapsing Soils

Collapsing soils have low moisture content whereby the particles contained are loosely-packed. These
soils also contain clay that acts like glue, holding together soil grams. When the soil gets wet, this clay
loosens and the particles of soil grams are then dispersed. Signs of collapsing soils can be cracks in the
wall which are a common examples of construction defects. The soil would need to be analyzed properly
to clearly understand if collapsing soil is indeed the issue. However, if collapsing soil is thought to be the
cause of a construction defect, it is important to note that in many cases this damage could have been
avoided with proper analysis of the soil before building.

Mudslides and Landslides

Mudslides and landslides can cause very serious damage to property as well as to any life it affects. A
mudslide, also known as a mudflow, contains dirt and debris that is accumulated from heavy rainfall,
snow melt, volcanic eruption or even a severe wildfire. The speed of the mudslide will depend on the
steepness of the slope it is flowing down, the amount of precipitation and other factors such the
vibration of the ground. The slide can reach a flow rate of 35 miles per hour while it picks up everything
in its path. It will not slow down until it reaches a plateau.

Landslides, unlike mudslides, contain only a block of land. Landslides can also be caused by natural
resources; however, they occur often from construction of roads.

Both mudslides and landslides can be quite dangerous and damaging to the property and lives they
encounter, but also to future land development sites.

Flooding

Flooding occurs when an excessive amount of water has covered an area, usually land, which is normally
dry. Flooding is usually caused by heavy rainfall that happens in a brief amount of time. Flooding can
cause minor damage if caught in time and controlled. However, flooding can cause irreversible damage
that takes time, resources, and money to fix. Flood damage can leave a property uninhabitable. Flooding
is not only a natural disaster but can be caused by plumbing issues. A builder could have cut corners in
the materials and/or products used or installed a faulty electrical system that effected the functionality
of the plumbing system.

Soil Erosion

Erosion can impact the shaping of a land's surface. Wind or water can start the process of erosion
whereby material from the land is swept down a stream, a coastline, a hill, or a slope. Water has the
biggest influence on erosion. Erosion can be a natural occurrence, but it can also be caused by human
error. If builders and/or developers do not survey soil properly, they can single-handedly start the
process of erosion. They can use construction techniques that instead of preventing erosion of the
surface will actually increase the potential of erosion and therefore damage to any future housing.

Soil and geological hazards like expansive soils, collapsing soils, mudslides and landslides, flooding or
erosion can cause severe damage to property. Do not wait to contact an attorney that will assist you in
taking the proper steps to protect your rights.