The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, United States District

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 Appellants'

App. at 35. A communication to the Duppses from defendant referred

to "The Travelers Insurance Company," however, see id. at 19, and

the district court referred to defendant by this name. For the

sake of continuity, we shall also 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 appeal the district court's grant of summary 1

judgment to the Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) in this diversity 2

action, arguing that terms in their insurance policy are ambiguous. We

affirm.

The Duppses contracted with Travelers for an insurance policy for

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." Appellants' App.

at 17.

-2-

contained the following exclusion to coverage:

We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or

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 produced a 500-ton boulder, which

is perched precariously over the Duppses' property. 

The Duppses sought to recover under their policy with Travelers for

damage from the rock fall, and for the reduced value of their property

caused by the potentially dangerous boulder. Travelers 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"

exception to the policy exclusion. The district court held that, as a

3

matter of law, the policy excluded recovery, and granted Travelers' motion

for summary judgment. 

The interpretation of insurance policies 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

interpretation 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, 969

(8th Cir. 1995).

This Court 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). "In

interpreting the language of an insurance policy or provision, words must

be construed in their 'plain, ordinary popular sense.'" Id. at 844-45

(quoting CNA Ins. Co. v. McGinnis, 666 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Ark. 1984)). While

"any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured," id. at 845,

"ambiguity exists only if a term or provision is subject to more than one

reasonable construction . . . ." Id. Under Arkansas law, "whether an

insurance policy or provision is ambiguous is a question of law which the

court decides, not the fact-finder." Id. at 844.

The Duppses argue that the collapse of the cave was possibly a

sinkhole collapse, and therefore whether the policy covered damage from the

resulting rock fall presents a factual question for a jury. While this is

a creative argument, it ignores the policy's language, and the parties'

clearly expressed intent. The policy explicitly excludes recovery for

damage caused by "earth movement," including a landslide, regardless of

what might have caused the earth movement. The ordinary meaning of the

term "landslide" includes rocks falling down a bluff. See, e.g., The

Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1080 (2d ed. 1987)

(landslide 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 the

only reasonable interpretation of the policy prohibits
 For the same reasons, the Duppses may not recover for the

4

diminution of property value caused by the possibility of future

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.