Typical earth movement exclusions reference “any” earth movement and are generally understood to be all-encompassing. Nevertheless, courts have disagreed on whether earth movement exclusions are limited to naturally occurring earth movement as opposed to man-made earth movement. The Michigan Court of Appeals in Home-owners Insurance Co. v. Andriacchi, 2017 WL 2491886 (Mich. App., filed June 8, 2017) recently held that the policy’s earth movement exclusion encompassed man-made earth movement as well as naturally occurring earth movement. In reaching this conclusion the court looked to the plain wording of the exclusion. The Michigan Court of Appeals found that the word “any” used within the exclusion (“any earth movement (other than sinkhole collapse) such as an earthquake, landslide or earth shrinking, risking or shifting”) was commonly understood to be an all-encompassing word meaning “every” or “all”. Thus, the exclusion applied to every and all movement of the earth without restriction or distinction as to type (i.e., natur
Michigan Court Finds Earth Movement Exclusion Applicable to Man-made Earth Movement
On Behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert | Mar 1, 2018 | Firm News
Categories
- Bad Faith (25)
- Damage Coverage (3)
- Discharged Attorney (1)
- Firm News (58)
- Injuries (15)
- Insurance Law (123)
- Liability (9)
- Medical Malpractice (5)
- Volunteer Defense (1)
Archives
- April 2021 (3)
- March 2021 (2)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (5)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (4)
- June 2020 (4)
- May 2020 (4)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (2)
- February 2020 (3)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (3)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (3)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (4)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (5)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (5)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (5)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
Recent Posts
- USE OF EMPLOYER’S VEHICLE WHILE INTOXICATED DID NOT EXCEED SCOPE OF PERMISSIVE USE
- MASSACHUSETTS BAD FAITH STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST IN THE MULTIPLIER
- FAILURE TO KEEP IME DOCTOR UPDATED ON PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION CAN FORECLOSE APPLICATION OF GENUINE DISPUTE DOCTRINE FOR MSJ PURPOSES
- IN ILLINOIS DISPARAGEMENT IS NOT “PATENT PENDING”
Learn More About Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert
- Teaching
- Education and Scholastic Activities
- Judicial Law Clerkships, Internships, Boards and Certifications
- American Law Institute
- American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel
- Arizona Insurance Institute
- Professional Recognition
- Books Published
- Published Case Reviews
- Academic Journals and Law Reviews
- Other Professional Publications
- Speaker/Presentations
- Professional Activities

