If a landowner receives a government order to clean up a landslide on their property, who should pay for it — the property owner or their liability insurer?

About 20 times per year, the city of Portland issues an order to stabilize and repair a landslide. It does that under Portland City Code Chapter 17.41: “Landslide Abatement.” Its purpose is to protect people from hazards created by landslides that harm or threaten public rights-of-way.

Under city code, the “responsible” landowner must pay to “abate the landslide.” That usually involves removing debris from the right-of-way and stabilizing the slope. If the landowner does not perform the work, the city can undertake it and place a lien on the property for the cost of the work.

The code distinguishes between two types of responsible landowners. The first is an owner of property abutting an area of a public right-of-way with hazardous debris — i.e., the owner of property uphill from a road that spills landslide debris onto the road. The second is an owner of property that destabilizes a public right-of-way — i.e., the owner of property downhill from a road where a landslide undermines the road and deprives it of support.

A landowner can be held responsible for a slide on their property even if they do not cause the slide. A landslide can be caused by natural or human forces such as nearby development, negligent contractors, changes in drainage patterns, heavy rainfall, or a 100-year flood. It doesn’t matter what caused it. The unlucky landowner does not have to be responsible for any of the causes of the landslide. They only must be an owner of the property where the landslide occurred. That makes them “responsible” for the landslide.

When the city of Portland orders a landowner to stabilize and repair a hazardous landslide, the landowner must hire a professional engineer to help them through the lengthy, technical, and expensive process of investigating the slide, designing a stabilization project, and obtaining permitting. The project cost can easily be six or seven figures.

Landslides are often unexpected and surprising events. A person doesn’t normally expect large portions of their property to calve off like an iceberg and rumble down the hill. As a result, few landowners set aside funds for landslides. Most landowners, however, do carry insurance.

Many property insurance policies include one set of coverage for the property itself and another for liability claims against the property owner relating to the property. The owned property coverage might require an insurer to pay for repairs to a home on the property after a fire. If the fire spreads to the neighbor’s property, the liability coverage might require the insurer to defend and settle a claim against the homeowner by the neighbor to repair the neighbor’s property.

Many owned property coverages, it turns out, do not apply to a landslide because they include a standard “earth movement exclusion.” Liability coverage is less likely to have this exclusion.

Suppose a landowner with no earth movement exclusion in their liability policy experiences a landslide that harms an adjacent roadway. In that case, their insurer may have a duty to pay for the abatement of the landslide. That includes paying for the investigation, permitting, and stabilization of the slope — everything but the deductible. Even if the owned property coverage has an earth movement exclusion, that exclusion should not apply to the liability coverage unless it is expressly incorporated into that part of the policy.

That is the implication of two recent decisions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in the case of
Pollock v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co. The case was about a Portland landowner whose property experienced a large landslide in February 2017 and resulted in a portion of Skyline Boulevard being closed for three days. The landowner received an order from the city of Portland to stabilize and repair the landslide. His insurer denied coverage. There was no owned property coverage because of an earth movement exclusion, and his insurer said there was no liability coverage because the case was only about harm to the insured’s property, not harm to the property of others.

The court’s first decision in the Pollock case was that the insurer had a duty to defend the city’s claim. That meant paying for the investigation, design, and legal services the landowner obtained to estimate and limit the liability. The city’s order alleged the insured was liable for the landslide because it had harmed the public right-of-way, not just the insured’s property. The insurer had a duty to defend the insured.

The court’s second decision was that the insurer also had a duty to indemnify the landowner for liability arising from the city’s claim. That meant paying for the permanent slope stabilization project the city required as a means of restoring and protecting the portion of the public right-of-way impacted by the slide.

In Pollock, the city acted promptly to clean the landslide debris that had spilled onto the paved roadway, but the remaining debris extended down the slope to the edge of the pavement. The debris filled the roadside stormwater ditch and other portions of the public right-of-way, which was wider than the paved roadway itself. Because the landslide was harming the public right-of-way, it remained a hazard and the landowner was liable for the cost of permanently stabilizing the slope. The owned property exclusion did not apply. The insurer had a duty to indemnify.

Before Pollock, there were few court decisions about whether an insurer must pay for a landslide. Owners of sloped properties adjacent to public roads now have a clearer legal claim for insurance coverage when the government holds them liable for a hazardous landslide. The Pollock ruling should help those landowners sleep better at night — but only after verifying their liability coverage includes no exclusion for earth movement. And local governments in landslide-prone areas might consider adopting a landslide abatement codelike Portland’s if they want to help their citizens obtain coverage.

This column is intended to provide readers with general information and not legal advice. Consult professional counsel for help regarding specific situations.

Column first appeared in the Oregon Daily Journal of Commerce on July 18, 2025.