Plaintiffs-taxpayers, Sheldon and Marion Portman, brought this suit for a tax refund after the Internal Revenue Service disallowed their deduction for a “casualty” loss under section 165(c)(3)1 of the Internal Revenue Code. In December 1973, the taxpayers bought a new home in San Jose, California. Soon after moving into the house, the structure began settling causing extensive damage. The damage included the cracking of the foundation, cracking of interior and exterior walls, and settling of walks and landscaping in front of their home. This was caused by densification of the soil under the house which in turn was the product of water saturation of the soil. The only issue on this appeal is whether the Portmans sustained a casualty loss within *1281the meaning of section 165(c)(3). This section allows deductions for loss of nonbusiness property arising from “fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty.” “[OJther casualty” was defined by this court in United States v. Rogers, 120 F.2d 244, 246 (9th Cir. 1941):
There being no contrary intention shown, we must take the word “casualty” as including all the ordinary and accepted meanings. Webster’s New Int. Diet., 2d Ed., p. 419, defines “casualty” in part as follows:
1. Chance; accident; contingency; also, that which comes without design or without being foreseen; an accident * * *
2. An unfortunate occurrence; a mischance; a mishap; a serious or fatal accident; a disaster * * *
It can be seen that “casualty” may properly be used in the sense of “accident.” The latter word is defined by the same source as “An event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event.” Showing that casualty may have the sense of suddenness is the definition in 1 Bouv. Law Diet., Rawle’s 3d Rev., p. 430, as follows: “Inevitable accident. Unforeseen circumstances not to be guarded against by human agency, and in which man takes no part.”
The Portmans contend that unusually heavy rains for the period October 1973 to February 1974 was an unforeseen occurrence or “casualty” which caused the damages. The rainfall for this period was:
October 1973 2.22" 296% above normal
November 1973 2.79" 165% above normal
December 1973 2.67" 1.9% above normal
January 1974 2.51" less than normal
February 1974 .81" less than normal
The 5.01 inches of rainfall during the months of October and November 1973 was considerably above the normal for that period, but the rainfall for the following three months was about or below normal. It is apparent that the normally heavy winter rains arrived earlier than usual.2 A loss produced by the ordinary3 operation of the elements on a poorly constructed4 house does not qualify for a casualty loss. There was no unforeseeable occurrence which would justify a contrary result.
The decision of the district court is affirmed.