Opinion ID: 2569746
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Case law interpreting similar provisions

Text: Umialik relies heavily on our decision in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bongen . [40] In Bongen, the clear-cutting of a right-of-way for the installation of transmission lines caused mudslides, which damaged the plaintiffs' home. [41] This court relied on an exclusion for earth movement to deny coverage under the all risks homeowners insurance policy. [42] The court found that the earth movement provisions were not ambiguous and refused to limit this exclusion to strictly natural phenomena. [43] But the peril suffered by the Wests is different. As discussed above, the water which damaged the Wests' home did not come from an external source, but from the insured improvements on the property. [44] Although the earth movement exclusion is not necessarily limited to strictly natural events, it does not include perils that originate from insured improvements. Furthermore, the State Farm policy in Bongen specifically excluded earth movement whether combined with water or not. [45] This provision is absent from the Umialik policy. We have reviewed other cases, including those cited by Umialik, that have interpreted an earth movement exclusion broadly to exclude perils similar to that suffered by the Wests. [46] But all of these cases involved a State Farm policy similar to that in Bongen explicitly excluding earth movement whether combined with water or not. [47] Thus, these other courts relied on language missing from the present policy. Additionally, the interpretation of insurance contracts in Alaska differs from the interpretation of insurance contracts in those jurisdictions interpreting earth movement broadly: these courts require a finding of ambiguity before applying the doctrine of reasonable expectations. [48] We do not require such a finding. [49] On the other hand, cases interpreting earth movement exclusions that do not contain the whether combined with water or not language have found coverage for damage caused by bursting pipes. At least two courts have distinguished the whether combined with water or not language. [50] Also these cases construe the earth movement exclusion to be limited to naturally occurring events. [51] With respect to water damage, we note that numerous authorities discussing a water damage exclusion similar to the present one have limited the water damage exclusion to natural phenomena. Couch on Insurance notes that [t]he exclusion of water below the surface has been held to apply only to natural flooding, as opposed to flooding by water emanating from artificial means. [52] For example, Couch finds authority to the effect that the exclusion does not encompass loss from subsurface water present from a leak in the plumbing system. [53] New York cases interpreting similar water damage exclusions have distinguished between natural and non-natural forces. [54] In another case construing a similar exclusion, the court recognized that the majority of the states ... construe the underground water exclusion as water of natural origin. [55] Umialik does not point to any cases excluding coverage for water damage that originated from the homeowners' property improvements. [56] Therefore, we hold that the exclusions for earth movement and water damage do not preclude coverage in this case.