I should have posted this earlier, but this is big news around here. They have sued everyone, but who is liable?Realtors, builders, engineers, even the surveyor who stamped the plat are named.
?ÿ
They constructed a subdivision over a well-know underground mine site?
Only one way to fix that problem which would be massive injections into the cavities and hope you shore it all up.
AML project.?ÿ
What's amazing is that everyone seems to have known about it.?ÿ
Who "should" be liable will probably be up to a judge and jury.?ÿ
Sad deal for sure.?ÿ Like Moe said, it appears a lot of people were aware 'something' was below the ground.?ÿ The attorneys and court room antics in this case will probably look a lot like a dozen chimps at the zoo screaming and slinging poo at whoever is standing still.
?ÿ
Assuming the past mine has the minerals rights there is little the surface right holders can do, because mining could be resumed at any time. Minerals rights are a Title Issue, so the the title insurance company may have some liability. I would not doubt that mineral rights are in fact an exception to the titles. Absent some claims by the owners, developers, builders, surveyors, engineers or municipal agencies to actual "buildability"?ÿ I would say everyone loses except the lawyers.
Centralia, PA has been one fire and subsiding for 58 years.?ÿ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire?ÿ
Paul in PA
?ÿ
not true:?ÿ if the previous mine owners didn't disclose the conditions of the site, albeit from?ÿ mining and reclamation plan, then they are probably not only liable but committing fraud. If the developers knew about and colluded with mine operators, bam, another pinata to swing at.?ÿ Ultimately, Judge Michael Day must know something or some one involved to blanket dismiss everything.?ÿ
Look at the chat piles in Oklahoma. The problems that these companies create because they only want profit at no cost is staggering.
Additionally. That would seem to be the worlds tiniest gypsum mine from the overlay they provided. Based on my previous careers, I'd say that the interstate, the remaining homes and all the surrounding "reclaimed areas"are suspect for massive subsidence and expect we'll see and hear more about this as it collapses.?ÿ what a bunch of chat holes!
It looks like there was warning, so I'd hope (but wouldn't bet) the surveyors aren't held liable.?ÿ Whoever made the decision to ignore the warning should be the first in line for liability.
a preliminary plan for the development sent to the Meade County planning board, commissioners and planning staff in 2000 that mentions the existence of an underground mine and that field boring may be needed to identify any hazardous cavities. It??s unclear if that testing ever took place.
?ÿ
Paul probably hit the nail on the head with "...everyone loses except the lawyers".
***********
A firm I was with was part of a huge lawsuit that involved a large farm pond that had been removed for a residential development.?ÿ The pond was drained and inspected by the Water Resources Board.?ÿ The area was excavated to a depth of 10' to 12' and replaced with approved and compacted fill.?ÿ Everything was done by the book and documented.
About a year after the development was competed and houses were built an area with a footprint similar to the original pond sank about 3'. This rendered the road impassable and about 8 houses ruined.?ÿ The lawsuits flew.?ÿ After five years of expensive litigation no one actually "won" anything.?ÿ There was no single entity that could be found liable for the mess.?ÿ?ÿ
The homeowners lost their houses.?ÿ Everyone else (developer, municipality, testing lab, engineer and construction co.)?ÿ paid attorneys huge sums of money to avoid any liability.?ÿ The insurance companies paid a relatively small settlement to the homeowners which was far too little and too late.?ÿ
The only people that walked away with money in their pockets was the attorneys.?ÿ
lawyers always get paid.....money, favors, political power, and occasionally get a healthy service of justice but that is rare at best...
...field boring may be needed to identify any hazardous cavities.
That makes me think there isn't an actual map of the mine.?ÿ But then on the first page there's the GIS overlay??ÿ Where did that come from?
I would guess the surveyor is at fault if there was a map of the mine and they didn't show it.
Mineral estates and surface estates often are severed.
That means there may have been no notice from the surface owners to any mineral estate holders of the proposed subdivision.
It's an ongoing issue.
It would always be best in these areas if the developer had the estate in fee simple for everything, but that usually isn't the case.?ÿ
In fact it could well be that the mineral estate holders are a band of heirs many without knowledge they even own it.?ÿ
Still, it seems that the underground mine was well known and either needed to be mitigated or the lands declared unfit for subdividing.
There is a highway near that got shifted south to an area over abandoned underground coal mines. These mines have maps, I suspect that the maps are not fully complete showing each shaft, however, the highway which was re-routed crossed more or less perpendicular across a number of shafts which were injected with material to stabilize the highway back in the 1980's. So far so good, it's not sinking after 40 years, still wouldn't want to build a house over that area. I suspect if the interstate crosses some shafts the old shafts were filled with material before construction.
Driven by that site probably close to a 100 times the last 6 years.?ÿ
Only ones who win are the lawyers, well that happens all too often.?ÿ
As for the map, it was created after the collapse, the local spelunking club was called in right away and they mapped everything down to the waterline. As for the interstate, the DOT has conducted elecreoresistivity surveys and now drilling, looks like the freeway is ok.
I think they are going to have a hard time holding the surveyor liable, unless they can prove that he should have included subterranean features on his map per the scope of services.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here we don't map subterranean features by default. We have an explicit note on all of our surveys stating that subsurface investigation is not part of our scope and underground utilities are shown per marks set by a professional locating company, and that we cannot guarantee there are not other subsurface features or underground utilities located on the subject property.
We will show borehole, monitoring well, piezometers, and any associated information asked for. But those things are almost always environmental/safety/design issues, not title issues.
The title report probably had an exception for the mineral rights and/or the pre-existing mine.
In 99% of cases, the surveyor would be fulfilling his due diligence by marking that exception as "not plottable" or "blanket in nature", because even if there were a map of the mining operations, I think it is easily argued that it is not the surveyor's place to overlay it and note "danger: sinkhole risk". We're not geotechnical or environmental engineers.
From an initial design survey and title perspective the exact location of subterranean voids doesn't matter, and from a design perspective that survey would serve as notice that it was something to be further investigated as an environmental and potential safety issue.
At that point it's on the project developers to see to it that the appropriate professionals got involved to assess and mitigate any potential risks. That might involve additional mapping or overlay exhibits by the surveyor, but if he's never called upon to do those, I don't see how he would be professionally delinquent.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I think they are going to have a hard time holding the surveyor liable, unless they can prove that he should have included subterranean features on his map per the scope of services.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here we don't map subterranean features by default. We have an explicit note on all of our surveys stating that subsurface investigation is not part of our scope and underground utilities are shown per marks set by a professional locating company, and that we cannot guarantee there are not other subsurface features or underground utilities located on the subject property.
We will show borehole, monitoring well, piezometers, and any associated information asked for. But those things are almost always environmental/safety/design issues, not title issues.
The title report probably had an exception for the mineral rights and/or the pre-existing mine.
In 99% of cases, the surveyor would be fulfilling his due diligence by marking that exception as "not plottable" or "blanket in nature", because even if there were a map of the mining operations, I think it is easily argued that it is not the surveyor's place to overlay it and note "danger: sinkhole risk". We're not geotechnical or environmental engineers.
From an initial design survey and title perspective the exact location of subterranean voids doesn't matter, and from a design perspective that survey would serve as notice that it was something to be further investigated as an environmental and potential safety issue.
At that point it's on the project developers to see to it that the appropriate professionals got involved to assess and mitigate any potential risks. That might involve additional mapping or overlay exhibits by the surveyor, but if he's never called upon to do those, I don't see how he would be professionally delinquent.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I think it would depend on the nature of the map; if it had bearings and distances then I think you'd show it the same as an easement.?ÿ But it looks like there was no map so perhaps the engineer is to blame for not investigating the extent of the mine.
Do you understand mineral rights? The mine owner most likely still owns the minerals rights. I would assume the subdivision, etc. was based on the surface fee title. It is doubtful the mine owner would sell the surface rights, but if he did it is subject to the mineral rights, and that is all the deed may say, "Exclusive of mineral rights" and those few words may be the only information you get. Once mineral rights are separated from land the surface title owner or purchaser must be particularly aware.
Paul in PA
