Last week, PC360 ran an article about a Colorado federal district court case, Bulinski v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., finding that the earth movement exclusion in a homeowners policy precluded coverage for a “falling rock.”
An almost identical claim scenario was submitted to the IIABA Virtual University in 2010 and we had seen the same type of loss several times prior to that. This resulted in an article published on the VU (password required for access).
The consensus of the VU faculty of coverage was different than the decision reached by this court. Most responders felt that, at best, this situation was ambiguous and that the historical perspective is that “earth movement” refers to large scale, catastrophic type exposures like earthquake and landslide, not a singular boulder rolling downhill. One member in particular, Mike Edwards, CPCU, used this logic to find for coverage:
I think the word “earth” in “earth movement” is plural. It’s talking about an expanse of earth moving like in an earthquake or an amalgamation of dirt, rocks, etc. (aka, an avalanche or landslide) moving. As such, I don’t think a singular boulder would constitute “earth movement.”
Webster’s definition of “earth” includes “the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe; especially : cultivable soil.” That sure sounds like the word “earth” is most often viewed as a plural noun and not to a big rock.
So, if the exclusion doesn’t apply, under most open perils policies, there would be coverage. Even under most broad named perils policies, the rock might qualify as a “falling object.” What do you think? Is the court correct or is there another reasonable interpretation of what “earth movement” refers to?
Photo by ohiovalleylandslides 
Photo by blackfog
Bill Wilson
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- The Invisible But Potentially Catastrophic Homeowners Exclusion That’s Not An Exclusion - September 19, 2023
- Revisiting the Illusory Coverage Assertion Following a Claim Denial - September 19, 2023
- FREE Webcast: How to Survive and Thrive in a Hard Market - August 1, 2023
I think the court got it right. I couldn’t access the articles. While earth includes soil – it doesn’t exclude (no pun intended) a large boulder.
Earth is used as a single word not many earths. There is no coverage because there is no ambiguity.
Good grief, not “plural”, “collective”.
He means he believes ‘earth’ is a “collective” noun. Like ‘team’ or ‘squad’ or ‘flock’.
I don’t think he’s right, but I’m certain that’s what he means.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collective-noun
Someone emailed me this:
Dust or sand storms are not uncommon in the west. Everyone has seen videos of tornadoes surrounded by an airborne debris field that includes “earth.” Hurricanes damage property by blowing (“moving”) sand from beaches. If a boulder is “earth” then certainly windblown dirt and sand are earth, so the “earth movement” exclusion should apply to damage caused by airborne dirt/soil/sand? That’s ludicrous. Common sense should prevail. An historical perspective should prevail. “Earth movement” exclusions exist to prevent coverage for catastrophic losses that could imperil the solvency of an insurer. This exclusion should not apply to a single boulder that falls on or rolls into a structure, nor should it apply to windstorms that include soil and sand.