Opinion ID: 900685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Damage Caused by Acts of Others

Text: [¶ 26.] Auto-Owners next argues that it is not obligated to pay for additional damage caused to the building as a result of the power supply being cut off by Montana-Dakota Utilities (MDU) on the evening of November 4, 1991. Auto-Owners points to the following policy language: 3. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following. But if loss or damage by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage.    i. Acts or Decisions: Acts or decisions, including the failure to act or decide, of any person, group, organization or governmental body. [¶ 27.] The trial court determined that this policy exclusion did not impair Hansen Housing's claim. If the language in this clause were to be taken literally, it would exclude from coverage any damage that results from acts or decisions of all persons, groups, or entities. Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 33 Mass.App.Ct. 235, 597 N.E.2d 1379, 1382 (1992). Auto-Owners would have us deny recovery for any damage due to acts or decisions which result in loss, if caused by an entity such as MDU in response to an emergency. By this reading, would water damage from fire hoses be excluded if the emergency response had been to a fire? [¶ 28.] We interpret ambiguities in this exclusion in a light most favorable to the insured. Chord, 1999 SD 1, ¶ 14, 587 N.W.2d at 732. Auto-Owners has the burden of proving that the exclusion applies to this situation. Purdy, 483 N.W.2d at 199. Whatever margins this clause was meant to encompass, we do not believe it can be interpreted to bar recovery in this situation. The action taken by MDU in turning off the electrical supply to the building was done to prevent injury to emergency personnel, as well as further, more serious, damage to the building. The proximate cause of the loss remained the broken water pipes. See Keeton & Widiss, supra § 5.5(c), at 553-56 (discussing multiple causes and coverage limitations). The act by MDU of turning off the electrical supply did not bar Hansen Housing's claim.