Hankins v. Maryland Casualty Co./Zurich American Insurance Co.
101 So. 3d 645
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Hankins contracted with Elite in July 2001 to build a home; a 2001 soil test recommended a 7-foot nonexpansive clay buffer to minimize Yazoo clay movement; Elite allegedly assured Hankins that Yazoo clay posed no concern and provided a warranty deed in April 2002; Hankins later sued for negligent construction and obtained default judgments against Elite; Maryland Casualty insured Elite under a CGL policy that includes an earth-movement exclusion limited to products-completed operations; the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Maryland Casualty, ruling the exclusion precluded coverage and vacating the default judgment against the insurer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the earth-movement exclusion unambiguously excluding Hankins’s property damage? | Hankins argues proximate cause is builder negligence, not earth movement. | Maryland Casualty argues damages stem from earth movement, within exclusion scope. | Yes; exclusion unambiguously bars coverage. |
| Is the exclusion ambiguous due to man-made vs natural earth movement? | Ambiguity should favor insured; exclusion not limited to natural movement. | Exclusion language clear and exclusive to earth movement. | No; language sufficiently unambiguous to exclude. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 352 So.2d 1309 (Miss. 1977) (ambiguity when earth movement exclusion conflicts with coverage for water damage)
- Rhoden v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 32 F.Supp.2d 907 (S.D. Miss. 1998) (earth-movement exclusion applied to natural movement in first-party policy)
- Boteler v. State Farm Cas. Ins. Co., 876 So.2d 1067 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (ambiguous exclusions not identical to Robertson; affirming exclusion application in context)
- Architex Ass’n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 27 So.3d 1148 (Miss. 2010) (CGL coverage narrowed by unambiguous exclusions; interpret policy as written)
- Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 20 So.3d 601 (Miss. 2009) (policy language controls; ambiguities resolved in insured’s favor only when real ambiguity exists)
- Noxubee County Sch. Dist. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 883 So.2d 1159 (Miss. 2004) (binding principles on interpreting contractual terms and exclusions)