Court Opinion

ID: 9734564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:38:05.102253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:49.206501
License: Public Domain

TOM RICKHOFF, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that Exclusion 1(h) excludes coverage for foundation damage caused by earth movement not resulting from a plumbing leak. I also believe that Exclusion l(k) unambiguously excludes such coverage.
Exclusion l(k) excludes coverage for loss “caused by earthquake, landslide or earth movement.” Dimotsis argues that the term “earth movement” is ambiguous and that it should only apply to “abnormally large” movements of the earth under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, because the preceding words “earthquake” and “landslide” involve abnormally large movements of the earth.
When a term is not defined in an insurance policy, it must be given its plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning, unless the policy indicates the term was used in a technical or different sense. See Western Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Meadows, 152 Tex. 559, 261 S.W.2d 554, 557 (1958); Tri County Serv. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 873 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, writ denied). It is proper to determine the plain meaning of a term by referring to a dictionary. See, e.g., Ohio Cas. Group of Ins. Cos. v. Chavez, 942 S.W.2d 654, 659 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ denied). The dictionary definition of “earth movement” is “differential movement of the earth’s crust [and] elevation or subsidence of the land.” Webster’s ThiRD New International Dictionary 715 (1981). Nothing in this definition limits “earth movement” to abnormally large movements of the earth; it unambiguously encompasses any elevation or subsidence of land.
Dimotsis argues that the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the scope of “earth movement” to abnormally large movements because it appears in the same exclusion as the terms “earthquake” and “landslide.” I disagree. We do not resort to the ejusdem generis doctrine unless we have already determined that a term is *812ambiguous. See Hussong v. Schwan’s Sales Enters., 896 S.W.2d 320, 325 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ). Here, Dimotsis is using ejusdem generis to create an ambiguity where none exists.
I concur in the majority opinion. I would also hold, however, that Exclusion l(k) excludes coverage for foundation damage caused by earth movement not resulting from a plumbing leak.