Roberts v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

Decision Date27 August 1985
Docket NumberNo. 18093-PR,18093-PR
PartiesDonald R. ROBERTS and Elsie Roberts, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant- Appellee.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Patten, Montague & Arnett by Wayne C. Arnett, Tempe, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Stinson & Douglas by William G. Stinson, Phoenix, for defendant-appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

Donald R. Roberts and his wife Elsie (hereinafter Roberts) brought an action against their insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty (hereinafter State Farm), for damages to their home allegedly covered by their insurance policy. The trial court found that Roberts' policy did not cover the type of damage complained of and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, Roberts v. State Farm, 146 Ariz. 301, 705 P.2d 1352 (1985), and Roberts petitioned this court for review. We have jurisdiction. Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and 17A A.R.S. Civil Appellate Proc. Rules, Rule 23.

We address only one issue:

Does an insurance policy that excludes damage done by insects cover, through an "ensuing loss" provision, damage done after the insects are exterminated by the leakage of honey from their hive?


In late May of 1980, Roberts began finding live honeybees inside their home. A few days after this discovery, Roberts noticed that a swarm of the insects had formed on their roof. Apparently the bees had made their way through the roof and were constructing a hive in Roberts' attic. A beekeeper was consulted but due to the A few days after the bees were dispatched, Roberts noticed honey dripping into their dining room. At first, this drip confined itself to one location, but gradually it began to spread and eventually encompassed the entire room. Apparently, after the bees were exterminated, the hive began to leak.

inaccessible location of the hive, he could not extract the queen and thereby draw off the swarm. Instead, he recommended extermination.

Roberts contacted their insurer, State Farm, and a representative told them to get estimates. Eventually, however, State Farm denied coverage, claiming that the damage was caused by insects and specifically excluded from Roberts' policy.


The relevant portion of Roberts' policy read as follows:

We insure for all risks of physical loss to the property described in Coverage A except for loss caused by:


6. wear and tear; marring; deterioration; inherent vice; latent defect; mechanical breakdown; rust; mold; wet or dry rot; contamination; smog; smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations; settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings; birds, vermin, rodents, insects or domestic animals. If any of these cause water to escape from a plumbing, heating or air conditioning system or household appliance, we cover loss caused by the water. We also cover the cost of tearing out and replacing any part of a building necessary to repair the system or appliance. We do not cover loss to the system or appliance from which this water escaped.

Any ensuing loss from items 1 through 6 not excluded is covered (emphasis added).

State Farm contends that the damage to Roberts' home was due to insects and clearly excluded from coverage by the terms of the policy. Roberts, on the other hand, maintain that the loss was not due to insects, but due to the absence of insects. They claim that after the bees were exterminated the hive began to melt and only then did the honey seepage begin. They therefore conclude that this was an "ensuing loss" from insects covered through the ensuing loss provision of their policy. They concede that the actual damage done by the bees themselves, i.e., the cost of tearing out hive and accompanying repairs is not covered. They dispute, however, that the damage to their dining room is not covered.

In their petition for review, Roberts argue that the terms of their policy are ambiguous and as such should be construed against their insurer. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Paynter, 122 Ariz. 198, 204, 593 P.2d 948, 954 (App.1979) (ambiguity in policy construed against insurer). State Farm responds, claiming that Roberts have never raised this argument before nor pointed to which term "they feel to be ambiguous." State Farm does not inform us as to what conclusions we are to draw from this assertion. We gather, however, State Farm wishes to raise a waiver argument: those arguments not raised in the trial court are waived if raised for the first time on appeal from a summary judgment. See Crook v. Anderson, 115 Ariz. 402, 403-04, 565 P.2d 908, 909-10 (App.1977).

We disagree with what we take to be State Farm's assertion. Throughout this litigation Roberts have proposed definitions for the word "ensue" and have cited cases dealing with ambiguous policies. In their motion for partial summary judgment, Roberts stated "[i]f the Court somehow finds that the policy is ambiguous, it must apply [the] well established rule that in the event of ambiguity, an insurance policy is to be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer (citations omitted)." Roberts did not waive their ambiguity argument.

We start out with the proposition that ambiguous terms in a contract of insurance are to be strictly construed in favor of the insured and coverage, and against the insurer. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Paynter, 122 Ariz. at 204, 593 P.2d at 954; Mission Insurance Co. v. Nethers, 119 Ariz. 405, 408, 581 P.2d 250, 253 (App.1978); Brenner v. Aetna Insurance Co., 8 Ariz.App. 272, 276, 445 P.2d 474, 478 (1968). In this context, if an insurer wishes to limit its liability, it must employ language in the policy which clearly and distinctly communicates to the insured the nature of the limitation. Sparks v. Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co., 132...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Andersen, CV-86-0616-PR
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • October 4, 1988 an insurance contract exists, the policy will be construed against the insurer. See, e.g., Roberts v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 146 Ariz. 284, 285-86, 705 P.2d 1335, 1336-37 (1985); Stearns-Roger Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 117 Ariz. 162, 165, 571 P.2d 659, 662 (19......
  • Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • September 25, 2014
    ...the policy which clearly and distinctly communicates to the insured the nature of the limitation.” Roberts v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 146 Ariz. 284, 285–86, 705 P.2d 1335, 1336–37 (1985) (citing Sparks, 132 Ariz. at 535, 647 P.2d at 1133 ). In addition, “ambiguous terms in a contract of......
  • Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 6, 1987
    ...unclear or ambiguous terms must be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. See Roberts v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 146 Ariz. 284, 285-286, 705 P.2d 1335, 1336-1337 (1985). "Of course, a finding of ambiguity is the easy way out since it permits the court to create its o......
  • Lincoln Technical Institute v. Federal Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • June 30, 1994 contract are to be strictly construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer. See, e.g., Roberts v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 146 Ariz. 284, 705 P.2d 1335 (1985) (other citations omitted). As explained above, though, the policy provisions and endorsements in question in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT