My family house was a total loss in the 2025 Palisades Fire, but our neighbor’s house survived. We hired a contractor to come in to remove debris that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to remove, including a retaining wall which was solely on our property that was damaged by the fire. Our neighbors are saying its removal caused instability on their side and they are asking that we cover the cost ($68,000) to build a new wall on THEIR property. Our contractor says we are not responsible. We are not planning to rebuild and will sell the lot in the future. Are we legally responsible for paying for this new wall or putting something on OUR side to stabilize their land?
Saori Mayeda asked 1 month ago 1 Answers
Demian Oksenendler Expert answered 4 weeks ago Hi Saori,
Thanks for reaching out. I know a little about this area. My answer is pretty general, since the details are a bit sparse. It also does not take into account any local/county ordinances that might apply.
Generally speaking, a property owner has a duty to maintain their property in a way that does not deprive a neighboring property of support (the terms are “lateral and subjacent support”). Excavation and construction on the property need to be done in a reasonable way, with ordinary care and skill. There is liability for negligent conduct that results in the loss of lateral or subjacent report from a neighboring property. The depth of excavation and other factors may affect this as well. Some relevant authority on this issue includes California Civil Code Section 832 (which codifies the right to lateral and subjacent support), and the decision in Sager v. O’Connell (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 27 (property owner liable for failure to maintain retaining wall).
In this situation, the questions would seem to be:
Was removal of the existing retaining wall negligent? And, if so, what could or should have been done differently?
Did the removal of the retaining wall actually cause any damage (e.g. subsidence)?
What is the correct fix? Is it placement of a new wall on the neighbor’s property? Replacement of the old wall that was removed? Something else? Arguably, the neighbor would not be entitled to new construction or improvements on their property, but it might be the least costly and/or most reliable or reasonable alternative.
Wrapped up in the above are, of course, questions of insurance coverage. It may be difficult for the folks who inquired to find coverage for the claims against them under a traditional homeowner’s policy. (we do not have a copy of theirs here, so this is speculative) Most homeowners policies only cover liability for accidents. Removal of the retaining wall was not an accident, although the failure to shore up the area where the old wall stood may have been. Additionally, the type of damage claimed by the neighbor could be an issue. If the neighbor suffered subsidence and earth movement, those damages could be excluded. On the other hand, if there are other kinds of damage (e.g., falling trees, broken windows, or other types of physical damage), those might be covered. If the homeowner has umbrella insurance, this may broaden the scope of coverage in helpful ways.
Additionally, and relatedly, there may be others responsible for the situation and/or who may owe indemnity. For instance, engineers, contractors, and others who directed, planned, and removed the old retaining wall may have acted below the applicable standard of care. They may share responsibility for the damage, and should probably be notified of the issue. It sounds like the contractor that removed the wall is on notice. They should be prepared to explain why removing the wall, and their other actions (including decisions not to place shoring or other support) were reasonable. The homeowners may want to tender to the contractor (and possibly others) for indemnity against the neighbors’ claims.
Good luck, Demián
Please login or Register to submit your answer