Opinion ID: 1534985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Additional Coverages Provision

Text: 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.