Nine Cracked Foundations and a Motion Designed to Bankrupt the Claim

The situation

The motion arrived by email on a Friday afternoon, and it was not what Ama, Chidi, or Marcia expected. Their claim, brought on behalf of nine households on a street backing onto a new mixed-use development, was still at an early stage. The developer's excavation for an underground parking structure, completed two years earlier, had triggered dewatering that dropped the water table under the neighbouring properties, and within eighteen months, foundation cracks had appeared in nine homes along the same block, ranging from cosmetic to structurally concerning. What the developer's lawyers were now asking the court to order was that each of the nine households retain a structural engineer and produce a full, individualized damages report, quantifying repair costs, before the court would even schedule a hearing on whether the developer was responsible for the damage in the first place.

Ama, a construction project manager who understood excavation and dewatering better than most homeowners ever would, had done the initial legwork of connecting the timeline of the cracking to the excavation schedule next door, and had helped organize the other affected households into a single, coordinated claim rather than nine separate, smaller ones. Chidi, a physiotherapist two doors down, had the worst-affected property, with a crack wide enough to let daylight into the basement. Marcia's home had cracking that was more moderate but still enough to worry a lender when she tried to refinance the year before.

The nine households had pooled resources to bring the claim together, sharing the cost of a single legal team rather than each hiring separately, which had kept things manageable so far. A damages report for each property, produced by a qualified structural and geotechnical expert capable of standing up to cross-examination, would run well into five figures per home. Multiplied across nine properties, before liability was even established, the group was looking at a cost that could easily exceed what several of them stood to recover if they won.

It was, in other words, exactly the kind of motion designed less to genuinely prepare the case for trial than to make the case too expensive to continue. If it succeeded, several of the nine households would likely have had to drop out rather than absorb the upfront cost, leaving a smaller, weaker claim behind.

What the other side was relying on

The developer's position rested on two pillars, and understanding both was the key to responding effectively. The first was procedural: they argued that damages and liability were so intertwined in a case involving nine separate properties that the court could not sensibly assess responsibility without knowing the scope and cause of each home's specific damage, since some cracking might turn out to be unrelated to the excavation at all. On its face, that is a reasonable-sounding argument. In practice, it was being used to front-load the most expensive part of the case onto a group of homeowners before anyone had decided whether the developer bore any responsibility whatsoever.

The second pillar was substantive, and it went to causation. The developer's engineers had prepared a preliminary report suggesting that at least some of the cracking predated the excavation and was attributable to ordinary soil settlement and the age of the homes, several of which had been built more than forty years earlier. They pointed, in particular, to a home inspection report Marcia had obtained when she purchased her house four years before the excavation began, which noted minor, pre-existing foundation cracking that the inspector had described as cosmetic and not flagged as a concern requiring monitoring. The developer's lawyers argued this showed at least one property already had documented foundation issues unrelated to their client's work, and floated that the same might be true, undocumented, for the others.

That argument mattered because it meant the developer was not simply going to dispute the dollar figure of the damages. They intended to argue, property by property, that some or all of the cracking was pre-existing, which is exactly the kind of dispute that turns into a battle of competing experts and drives costs upward fast. Marcia's earlier inspector, in missing or understating what may have been an early sign of a genuine structural issue, had handed the developer a document that made that argument more credible for at least one of the nine homes.

Facing that combination, our first job was not to fight the causation argument immediately. It was to make sure the group did not have to fund a nine-property forensic engineering battle before a court had even decided, on the core facts, whether the developer's dewatering was capable of causing this kind of damage in the first place.

What we did

1. Brought a motion to bifurcate the trial. We asked the court to split the proceeding into two phases, with liability decided first on the shared facts about the excavation, the dewatering, and the geotechnical mechanism linking them to foundation damage, and damages assessed afterward only if liability was established. This countered the developer's attempt to front-load the case with nine expensive damages reports before that threshold question was answered, meaning the group only had to justify spending real money once a court confirmed there was something to spend it on.
2. Focused the liability phase on shared, not individual, evidence. Rather than nine separate causation stories, we built the liability case around the excavation permits, the dewatering logs, and one qualified geotechnical expert's opinion on whether the dewatering was capable of causing the kind of settlement seen along the street generally. This meant one expert report at the liability stage instead of nine, a substantial cost saving that made the case financially sustainable for a group of ordinary homeowners rather than a well-funded developer.
3. Addressed Marcia's inspection report directly rather than avoiding it. We had our own expert review the four-year-old inspection alongside the current cracking pattern in her home, and the review concluded the earlier cracking was materially different in location and character from what appeared after the excavation began. We disclosed this analysis early, in our own materials, rather than waiting for the developer to raise it at trial, which took away much of its persuasive force as a surprise and let us control how the court first encountered it.
4. Coordinated timeline evidence from all nine households. We gathered dated photographs, refinancing appraisals, and contractor visit records from each property to build a shared timeline showing the cracking beginning within months of the excavation across multiple homes at roughly the same time, which is difficult to explain away as nine unrelated instances of coincidental ordinary settlement happening on the same schedule by chance.
5. Kept the group's costs proportionate to the stakes at every stage. Because the damages phase was deferred, we held off retaining individual structural engineers for each property until liability was actually resolved, saving the group the bulk of the expert costs the developer's original motion would have required them to spend regardless of whether they ultimately won or lost the case.
6. Prepared the group for a possible partial result well before judgment. We were candid from early on that Marcia's property, given the earlier inspection report, might see a smaller damages award relative to repair cost than the others, or a harder-fought dispute over its share, and that the nine households needed to be prepared, as a group, for the liability finding to translate unevenly once it reached the damages stage.

The outcome

The bifurcation motion succeeded, and the liability phase went ahead first on the shared excavation and dewatering evidence, with the individual damages questions left entirely for a later stage. The court found that the developer's dewatering activity was a substantial cause of the foundation settlement affecting the street, based largely on the timeline correlation across multiple properties and the geotechnical expert's opinion, which the developer's own preliminary engineering report was not able to seriously dislodge once put under cross-examination. That finding meant the group did not have to prove causation nine separate times, and it gave every household, including those who might otherwise have dropped out rather than fund individual damages work up front, a solid foundation to negotiate from.

Once liability was established, the case moved to settlement rather than a full damages trial for each property. The developer's insurer, facing a liability finding it could not easily overturn on appeal, agreed to fund repair costs for eight of the nine homes at figures close to independent contractor estimates obtained after judgment. Marcia's claim settled for a reduced amount relative to her actual repair cost, reflecting the genuine dispute over how much of her cracking predated the excavation and how much was newly caused by it, a compromise that acknowledged her documented pre-existing issue without denying her a recovery altogether.

The total settlement across all nine households came in below what a full, uncontested recovery would have looked like, and meaningfully below what the group might have achieved if Marcia's property had carried no complicating history at all. It also came in far below the cost the developer's original motion would have imposed on the group simply to establish liability in the first place, which is the comparison that mattered most to Ama, Chidi, and the rest of the street when they weighed, at the end, whether the outcome was worth the two years it took to reach.

What you can learn from this