### The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. In their First Amended Answer, Travelers explained that its 2 

### correct name is "The Travelers Indemnity Company." See Appe llants' App. at 35. A communication to the Duppses from defendant r eferred to "The Travelers Insurance Company," however, see id. at 19, and the d istrict court referred to defendant by this name. For th e sake of continuity, we shall a lso refer to defendant by this name. ___________ No. 95-3464

___________ Kirk Dupps; Cynthia Dupps, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. The Travelers Insurance Company,* *

Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 15, 1996 Filed: April 5, 1996

___________ Before MAGILL, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ MAGILL, Circuit Judge.
Kirk and Cynthia Dupps ap peal the district court's grant of summary 1 judgment to the Travelers Insurance C ompany (Travelers) in this diversity 2 action, arguing that terms in their insurance policy are ambiguous. W e affirm.

The Duppses contracted with Travelers for an insurance policy fo r real property in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. The policy

### The term "sinkhole" is defined in the policy as "the sudden 3 

### sinking or collapse of land into underground empty spaces created by the action of water on limestone or dolomite." Appellant s' App. at 17. -2- contained the following exclusion to coverage:

We will n ot pay for loss or damage caused directly o r indirectly by . . . [a]ny earth movement (other than sinkhole collapse), such as an earthquake, landslide, mine subsidence, earth sinking, rising or shifting. . . . Appellants' App. at 11-11a. The exclusion provides that "[s]uch loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss." Id. at 11.
The covered property lies in front of a thirty-foot-high bluff. Near the top of the bluff is a cave. The roof of the cave partially collapsed, and on May 10, 1994, the collapse sent rock down onto the Duppses ' property, causing damage. The cave also produce d a 500-ton boulder, which is perched precariously over the Duppses' property.
The Dupps es sought to recover under their policy with Travelers for damage from the rock fall, and for the reduced value of their propert y caused by the potentially dangerous boulder. Tr avelers denied coverage on the grounds that the damage arose from earth movement, and was therefore excluded from coverage. The Duppses brought this action in the district court, arguing that their property damage claims came within the "sinkhole " exceptio n to the policy exclusion. The district court held that, as a 3 matter of law, the policy excluded recovery, andgranted Travelers' motion for summary judgment.
The interpretation of insurance poli cies involves questions of state law. See Bell Lumber & Pole Co. v. United States Fire Ins.

### -3-

Co. , 60 F.3d 437, 441 (8th Cir. 1995). We review the district court' s inte rpretation of Arkansas law de novo. See Salve Regina College v

. Russell , 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991). We also review the district court' s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Tindle v. Caudell , 56 F.3d 966, 96 9 (8th Cir. 1995).

This Cour t must construe the insurance contract between the parties to give effect to the parties' intent. Langley v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 995 F.2d 841, 845 (8th Cir. 1993) (interpreting Arkansas law). "I n interpreting the lang uage of an insurance policy or provision, words must be co nstrued in their 'plain, ordinary popular sense.'" Id. at 844-4 5 (quoting CNA Ins. Co. v. McGinnis , 666 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Ark. 1984)). Whil e "anyambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured," id. at 845 , "ambiguity exists onl y if a term or provision is subject to more than one reasonab le construction . . . ." Id. Under Arkansas law, "whether a n insurance policy or p rovision is ambiguous is a question of law which the court decides, not the fact-finder." Id. at 844.

The D uppses argue that the collapse of the cave was possibly a sinkhole collapse, and therefore whether the policy covered damage from th e resulting rock fall presents a factual question for a jury. While this is
a c reative argument, it ignores the policy's language, and the parties ' clearl yexpressed intent. The policy explicitly excludes recovery fo r damage caused by "earth movement," including a landslide, regardless o f what migh t have caused the earth movement. The ordinary meaning of th e term "land slide" includes rocks falling down a bluff. See, e.g. , Th e Random H ouse Dictionary of the English Language 1080 (2d ed. 1987 ) (lan dslide means "the downward falling or sliding of a mass of soil , detritus, or rock on or from a steep slope"). We agree with the district court that the insurance policy in this case is not ambiguous, and that th e only reasonable interpretation of the policy prohibits

### For t he same reasons, the Duppses may not recover for th e 4 

### dim inution of property value caused by the possibility of futur e rock falls.
-4- recovery for rocks which have fallen on the Duppses' property. 4
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.