Boteler v. State Farm Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003-CA-00687-COA.,2003-CA-00687-COA. |
| Citation | 876 So.2d 1067 |
| Parties | Sidney P. BOTELER, Appellant, v. STATE FARM CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Jay Max Kilpatrick, Jackson, attorney for appellant.
Roechelle Ryann Morgan, Tupelo, attorney for appellee.
Before SOUTHWICK, P.J., IRVING and GRIFFIS, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., for the Court.
¶ 1. Sidney P. Boteler filed suit in Rankin County Circuit Court against State Farm Casualty Insurance Company for breach of contract. The court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of State Farm and entered an order of dismissal. Boteler appeals, arguing that there is a genuine issue of material fact. We find that there is not and affirm.
¶ 2. Sidney Boteler had a policy with State Farm that insured his Rankin County residence. In August 1998, after his foundation shifted and damage to the interior occurred, Boteler discovered that a pipe beneath his house was leaking water. He sent a claim to his insurance agent.
¶ 3. State Farm hired GeoScience Engineers to investigate the damage. GeoScience found that the structural damage had a direct correlation with the unpredictable shrinking and swelling movements of clay. It was also found that there would have been increased moisture in the soil from a leak in plumbing. The policy contained an exclusion for damages caused by "earth movements." State Farm concluded that this exclusion applied to the damages. Boteler filed suit. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Boteler has appealed.
DISCUSSION
1. Genuine issue of material fact
¶ 4. This case has simple facts, but that does mean that there are no disputed material facts. To examine for such a dispute, we must compare the possible explanations for the damage to the Boteler home with the language of the insurance policy.
¶ 5. The foundation of Boteler's home shifted. A broken pipe that was leaking water when the damage was discovered may have been the cause of the shifting, or the damage to the pipe may have been the result of shifting that arose from other causes. State Farm argues that the relevant policy provisions on exclusions are the following:
¶ 6. The earth movement exclusion applies to damage arising from natural or external forces. State Farm's expert, GeoScience, determined the damage resulted from unpredictable shrinking and swelling of the clay lying under the home. Boteler argues that there were other, equally plausible causes that could not be resolved on summary judgment. That may be, but the "earth movement" exclusion in Section 2 makes the cause of the movement irrelevant: "We do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss...."
¶ 7. Despite the clear language, Boteler argues that a Supreme Court precedent that permitted recovery for earth movement "addressed the precise issue" before us, on "facts strikingly similar to the facts of the present case." Appellant's Brief, at 8, citing New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 352 So.2d 1307 (Miss.1977). In Robertson, a homeowner suffered damages to the home's foundation when a pipe ruptured. The Robertson policy had this "earth movement" exclusion:
THIS COVERAGE GROUP DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS (a) by wear and tear, deterioration, rust, mold, wet or dry rot, contamination, smog, smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations, mechanical breakdown; settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings; ... (b) caused by, resulting from, contributed to or aggravated by earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, or any other earth movement....
¶ 8. Since the earth movement exclusion was part of a provision that addressed earthquakes, volcanic eruption, and landslides, the court found that the only "earth movement" damages that were excluded were those resulting from natural forces. Damage from a water leak would not be excluded. Id. at 1310. Whether the exclusion was found to be inapplicable or simply ambiguous, the policy was construed in favor of the homeowner and coverage for damage that resulted from a leaking pipe was provided. Id. at 1311.
¶ 9. With respect for the best efforts of Boteler's counsel, we conclude that the policy language in the case we resolve today and that in the 1977 Robertson appeal are strikingly dissimilar. Ambiguities in insurance contracts are read to favor the insured, but that principle does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broom v. Wilson Paving & Excavating, Inc.
...780 A.2d 1123, 1126 (D.C.2001) (freezing of a pipe and failure of a sump pump caused collapse of home); Boteler v. State Farm Cas. Ins. Co., 876 So.2d 1067, 1068–69 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (leaking pipe caused foundation to shift resulting in damage to interior); Alf v. State Farm Fire and Cas. ......
-
Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...by expressing their intentions through the language of their choice"); 7 COUCH ON INS. § 101:39; MISS. INS. LAW & PRAC. § 1:11. Rhoden and Boteler are particularly instructive on this score. In Rhoden, State Farm excluded losses from earth movement (the excluded peril) under an ACC provisio......
-
Hankins v. Md. Cas. Company/Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
...relying upon Rhoden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 32 F.Supp.2d 907 (S.D.Miss.1998), and Boteler v. State Farm Casualty Insurance Company, 876 So.2d 1067 (Miss.Ct.App.2004), concluded that the “earth movement” endorsement “excludes the damages suffered by [Hankins] from coverage und......
-
Nat'l Quarry Servs., Inc. v. First Mercury Ins. Co.
...listed only natural events but stated that any loss would be excluded despite a concurrent cause), with Boteler v. State Farm Cas. Ins. Co., 876 So.2d 1067, 1069-70 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that damage from a burst pipe was unambiguously excluded).This court finds that the Policy's su......
-
Chapter 4
...Underwriters of America, Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 975 N.E.2d 458 (2012). Mississippi: Boteler v. State Farm Casualty Insurance Co., 876 So.2d 1067 (Miss. App. 2004) (exclusion applied to pipe leak or man-made cause of earth movement). New York: Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem......
-
CHAPTER 4 First-Party Insurance
...Underwriters of America, Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 975 N.E.2d 458 (2012). Mississippi: Boteler v. State Farm Casualty Insurance Co., 876 So.2d 1067 (Miss. App. 2004) (exclusion applied to pipe leak or man-made cause of earth movement). New York: Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem......