Opinion ID: 1534985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Earth Movement Exclusion

Text: State Farm invokes the exclusion in its homeowners policy for losses attributable to earth movement because it is undisputed, as a factual matter, that the collapse of Chase's house would not have occurred in the absence of such movement. As Edgar Seaquist explained, the foundation of the house failed as a direct result of the vertical and horizontal movement of the earth banks .... when the soil became water saturated and ... flowed out from below the foundations. State Farm argues that this event fits squarely within the policy definition of earth movement as meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding, or contracting of earth, all whether combined with water or not, and is aptly described by one of the words used in the exclusion to illustrate that definition, subsidence. [2] Chase offers a number of reasons why the earth movement exclusion in her State Farm homeowners policy does not apply to the loss that she sustained when her water pipe ruptured, an otherwise covered risk. Her reasons boil down to four arguments. Chase argues, first, that the earth movement exclusion must be construed to apply only to events that are caused by natural forces, either because that is what the exclusion plainly says or because ambiguities in the exclusion must be resolved in her favor. Second, Chase argues that the excluded event of earth movement was not the efficient proximate cause of her loss. Third, Chase argues that an endorsement to her policy specifically covered the failure of her sump pump to remove the water from the foundation area of her home. Fourth, Chase argues that she had a reasonable expectation that her losses would be covered which State Farm must honor. Recognizing that insurance contract language often can be confusing and overwhelming for the average reader, and that any reasonable doubt which may arise as to the meaning or intent of an exclusion from coverage must be resolved against the insurer, [3] we have considered Chase's contentions carefully. A number of other courts previously have examined the unique [4] language of the State Farm earth movement exclusion at issue here. We find ourselves in agreement with the large majority of those courts, which have found the exclusion unambiguous and have rejected contentions such as Chase advances here. [5] We are compelled to conclude that State Farm's earth movement exclusion unambiguously applies to the facts of this case.
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.
Chase asks us to apply the socalled efficient proximate cause doctrine, which is utilized in many jurisdictions to settle whether there is insurance coverage when a covered and a noncovered peril contribute to a loss. The doctrine holds that unless the insurance policy provides otherwise, [i]f a covered peril is found to be the efficient proximate cause, then the loss is covered; if a noncovered peril is found to be the efficient proximate cause, then the loss is not covered. Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co. v. National Union Fire Ins., 863 F.Supp. 1226, 1230 (D.Nev.1994). [8] Our own case law, which simply focuses on the proximate cause of the loss, follows the same principle. See Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 41 A.2d 168, 171 (D.C.1945) (whether appearing in a clause creating or in one excepting from liability, unless qualifying words appear, such as `direct,' `direct or indirect,' `sole,' etc., the usual rule attributing a result to the proximate and not to the remote cause has been applied). See also Quadrangle Dev. Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 645 A.2d 1074, 1076-77 (D.C.1994) (citing Unkelsbee and describing proximate cause in the insurance context as the efficient cause, the one that necessarily sets the other causes in operation, and as the dominant cause, distinguishing it from merely incidental causes). [9] Chase contends that the efficient proximate cause of her loss was a covered perilthe rupture of her water pipe rather than the uncovered peril of the earth movement that resulted from that rupture. We need not decide whether Chase is correct on this point. The efficient proximate cause doctrine is a default rule which gives way to the language of the contract. Pioneer Chlor Alkali, 863 F.Supp. at 1232 (citations omitted). The State Farm policy unambiguously dictates that proximate causation rules are not to be followed in connection with the earth movement exclusion. The lead-in paragraph to that exclusion addresses the issue explicitly. That paragraph excludes from coverage any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of earth movement. The exclusion applies regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss. . . . In other words, if earth movement was a contributing cause of the loss of Chase's property, the policy does not cover that losseven if earth movement was not the (efficient) proximate cause and there were more dominant causes involving covered risks. The causation language in the introduction to the earth movement exclusion is clearly intended to supplant the efficient proximate cause doctrine. Cf. Quadrangle, 645 A.2d at 1076 (noting that where insurance policy denies coverage if excluded event is merely an indirect cause of the loss, [t]he broad sweep of the ... exclusion reaches damages not proximately caused by the excluded risk). This is a permissible outcome in the District of Columbia, as there is no statute or public policy requiring otherwise. Generally, parties are free to enter into whatever contractual agreements they wish. That freedom is curtailed by the courts only when such contracts, or contractual provisions, run contrary to public policy. Smalls, 678 A.2d at 36.
When Chase obtained her homeowners insurance, she purchased an endorsement that removed a specific water damage exclusion in the basic policy [10] and added a so-called sump pump rider. That rider reads, in pertinent part, as follows: We cover accidental direct physical loss caused by water from outside the plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water which enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well or other type system designed to remove subsurface water which is drained from the foundation area. . . . All other policy provisions apply. Chase contends that the plain language of this rider indicates that it covers the insured against all property damage sustained should the pump fail to operate properly, which is what occurred when her sump pump failed to remove the water that accumulated in the crawl space beneath her house and caused the supporting soil to flow away from the foundation. This contention is too sweeping. While the endorsement removed a specific water damage exclusion in the policy, it specified that [a]ll other policy provisions apply. This can only mean that the earth movement exclusion (and other exclusions not preempted by the endorsement) remained in effect. Hence, although the failure of the sump pump was a covered event, the presence of earth movement an excluded eventin the chain of causation operated to exclude coverage under the policy. Accord, Toumayan, 970 S.W.2d at 825-26. Chase additionally argues that if the sump pump rider does not cover her loss, the additional coverage it purports to provide is illusory because some excluded event would always preclude coverage. At oral argument, State Farm's counsel stated in response to this argument that the rider covers a range of damage to floors, carpets, and other parts of the house caused by water seepage attendant upon the failure of a sump pump. While the additional coverage afforded by the rider may be limited, we cannot say that it is non-existent or de minimis, and thus we are not prepared to hold that the failure of the endorsement to override the earth movement exclusion is unconscionable.
This court has previously had occasion to discuss what we have referred to as the doctrine of reasonable expectations. Smalls, 678 A.2d at 35. Under that rubric, we stated that [s]ince insurance contracts are written exclusively by insurers, courts generally interpret any ambiguous provisions in a manner consistent with the reasonable expectations of the purchaser of the policy. Id. Seeking to invoke this principle, Chase argues that she had reasonable expectations that should override any language in the policy that would deny coverage of her loss in this case. Chase makes three contentions. First, she asserts that the insurance policy language was too complicated for her to understand that it afforded only limited protection. Second, she suggests that public policy dictates that insurance companies should not be permitted to limit coverage so drastically. And third, she proposes that if State Farm is going to sell such limited coverage, it should be required to disclose and explain the limitations to the consumer at the time the policy is sold. We recognize that purchasers of insurance may often retain expectations that are contrary to the language of their policies. We appreciate that even if policy language is explicit, insureds may not actually read it; or, if they do read it, that they may not comprehend fully all the ramifications of the unavoidably complicated provisions concerning coverage and exclusions from coverage. We imagine that few purchasers of homeowners insurance have the knowledge and experience to foresee clearly how exclusions may operate, or even to foresee the perils that may trigger the exclusions. Nonetheless, the reasonable expectations doctrine is not a mandate for courts to rewrite insurance policies and reallocate their assignment of risks between insurer and insured. If the policies are clear and unambiguous, they will be enforced by the courts as written, so long as they do not `violate a statute or public policy.' Smalls, supra (quoting Robinson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 288 A.2d 236, 238 (D.C.1972)). We have concluded that the earth movement exclusion in the State Farm homeowners policy before us is not ambiguous. There is no statute or articulated public policy that would restrain its operation in this case. Nor can we say that State Farm owed Chase a greater duty of disclosure or warning than the duty it fulfilled by using clear and unambiguous language in drafting the exclusionary provision in the policy. [11] Our duty, therefore, is to enforce the insurance contract as written.
If the duty of the court in evaluating Chase's reasonable expectations claim is to enforce the State Farm homeowners insurance contract as it is written, the court must read that contract, at the summary judgment stage, in its entirety. A policyholder's objectively reasonable expectations of coverage are shaped by the insurance contract taken as a whole. The earth movement exclusion may appear absolute when read in isolation, but its application may be limited by other provisions which the court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment with the policy before it, must not ignore. As part of our independent review of the record in the context of the legal and factual issues as framed by the parties at summary judgment, see Vessels v. District of Columbia, 531 A.2d 1016, 1019 (D.C.1987), we have therefore examined all the provisions of Chase's policy with an eye to their overall effect on the applicability of the earth movement exclusion and her reasonable expectations of coverage for the loss that she sustained. We find that the policy does contain a provision that may support Chase's reasonable expectations claim, at least to a limited extent. The provision, which has been unremarked by the parties, [12] is contained in the additional coverages section of the policy and reads as follows: 10. Land. If a single event results in both a Loss Insured to the insured dwelling, other than the breakage of glass or safety glazing material, and a loss of land stability, we will pay up to $10,000 as an additional amount of insurance for repair costs associated with the land: This includes the costs required to replace, rebuild, stabilize or otherwise restore the land. This Additional Coverage applies only to the land necessary to support that part of the insured dwelling sustaining the Loss Insured. The SECTION ILOSSES NOT INSURED reference to earth movement does not apply to the loss of land stability provided under this Additional Coverage. We perceive the possibility that the rupture of the water pipe in the crawl space beneath Chase's house was a single event that resulted in both a Loss Insured to the insured dwelling and a loss of land stability within the meaning of this provision. If so, the provision states that the earth movement exclusion is inapplicable to the extent of the additional coverage of up to $10,000 for repair costs associated with the land necessary to support that part of the insured dwelling sustaining the Loss Insured. As the parties have not addressed the effect of the provision we cite, we refrain from analyzing it further ourselves. It may be considered on remand.