Opinion ID: 2460220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The district court erred by relying on Schroeder v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Text: Powell contends that the district court erred by relying on Schroeder, 770 F.Supp. 558, to support its conclusion that Liberty Mutual properly disclaimed coverage. We agree. In Schroeder, a pipe ruptured, saturating the soil with water and causing the soil to settle, which ultimately damaged a building insured by a State Farm insurance policy. Id. at 559. The policyholder's claim was denied under the earth movement exclusion in the policy, which stated: We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss 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: b. earth movement, meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding or contracting of earth, all whether combined with water or not. Earth movement includes but is not limited to earthquake, landslide, erosion, and subsidence but does not include sinkhole collapse. ... Id. at 560. Schroeder concluded that earth movement can include non-natural events, and that no matter what the cause, if earth movement is involved, coverage is denied. Id. The district court granted Liberty Mutual summary judgment under the rationale that there was no reason to depart from the holding in Schroeder, especially because the facts were similar to those in Schroeder. However, the earth movement exclusion in Schroeder is distinguishable from the earth movement exclusion in Powell's policy. First, the policy in Schroeder was drafted differently than the policy here, and many courts have concluded that certain damage is excluded under earth movement exclusions in policies similar to the one in Schroeder. See, e.g., Chase, 780 A.2d at 1126. Schroeder 's earth movement definition is not all-inclusive because it contains the language includes but is not limited to, whereas Liberty Mutual's policy simply states including. As such, the earth movement exclusion in Schroeder clearly applies to other events than those listed as examples in its earth movement definition and Liberty Mutual's does not. Second, Schroeder 's lead-in clause clearly states that it does not matter what caused the earth to move, if there is earth movement, the damage caused by that movement is excluded. When reading Schroeder 's lead-in clause and earth movement definition, one can discern what damage was excluded. Further, Schroeder 's earth movement definition includes earth movement combined with water, whereas Liberty Mutual's earth movement definition does not. The conclusions reached by the court in Schroeder were based on the specific language of the policy at issue in that case. Simply because the damage to Powell's house might be excluded under the Schroeder policy does not mean it is excluded under the Liberty Mutual policy at issue in this case. Thus, we conclude the district court erred in relying on Schroeder.