WEST VIRGINIA, June 2 – The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Erie Insurance was not liable to provide coverage to an insured business which claimed landslide damage, in part because the earth movement exclusion in the policy made no distinction between natural and artificial earth movement events.
In Erie Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Chaber, the Chabers’ motorcycle shop leased property and insured it with a policy issued by Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Co. A Feb. 19, 2014, landslide caused damages to the property, including broken windows. Erie engaged an expert who opined the damage was the result of seasonal climate change. The insureds disputed the claim, and engaged an expert who said the loss was the result of improperly excavated ground.
The W.Va. Circuit Court granted judgment in favor of the Chabers in February 2016, holding that the insuring agreement did not unambiguously exclude manmade landslides. The state Supreme Court reversed, however, and held that manmade landslides and natural events were both excluded from the Earth Movement Exclusion in the policy. They also held that that an exception for glass breakage to the exclusion could not be extended to cover all aspects of the loss.
Judge Margaret Workman wrote:
“A provision in an insurance policy that excludes a loss regardless of whether such loss is ‘caused by an act of nature or is otherwise caused’ is not ambiguous and excludes coverage for the loss whether it is caused by a man-made or a naturally-occurring event.”
The Court also found that while ensuing loss involving breakage of glass was covered via an exception to the Earth Movement Exclusion, the lower court misapplied that exception when it used it to require Erie to pay for the entire claim, calling the circuit court’s interpretation “unjustifiable.”
Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Chaber, No. 16-0490, W.Va. Supreme Court (Workman, J.)