Opinion ID: 1534985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Natural Causes Limitation

Text: In support of her contention that her policy excludes from coverage loss attributable to earth movement only where natural forces cause the earth movement, Chase focuses on the statement in the exclusion that earth movement includes but is not limited to earthquake, landslide, mudflow, sinkhole, subsidence and erosion. Chase argues that only natural events are mentioned in this list of illustrations, and that by the principle of construction known as ejusdem generis, [6] the term earth movement should therefore be limited to naturally occurring events. Although clause (d) of the lead-in paragraph to the exclusion states that it applies regardless of whether the excluded event arises from natural or external forces, Chase claims that the word external is ambiguous, and should not be read so broadly as to include non-natural causes such as the rupture of a water pipe. We find Chase's arguments unpersuasive. Clause (a) of the lead-in paragraph states that the earth movement exclusion applies regardless of ... the cause of the excluded event. This categorical statement is unambiguous, and nothing in clause (d) qualifies or limits it, whatever the word external may be intended to mean. [7] Nor is it true that the examples of earth movement set forth in the exclusion are necessarily all natural events. Except, perhaps, for earthquakes, all of them may result from non-natural human activities as well as natural causes. Even if we ignore that fact and view the examples as purely natural events, ejusdem generis is not a guideline to be followed if the language of the policy exclusion manifests a clear contrary intent. That is the case here. The introduction to the earth movement exclusion states that the cause of the excluded event is irrelevant, and the exclusion states explicitly that earth movement is not limited to the examples enumerated.