Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Dorothy Smith, 264 So. 3d 737

Dorothy Smith sued her homeowner insurer (Mississippi Farm Bureau) after her home's foundation showed cracking and separations; Farm Bureau denied the claim based on an "earth-movement" exclusion in the policy.
Smith alleged breach of contract and extracontractual claims and sought repair costs and other damages; Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment.
Smith relied on a short letter from her expert (Blanton) and her interrogatory answers that described multiple plumbing leaks; she argued a policy provision covering accidental water discharge should allow coverage.
Farm Bureau produced expert reports and deposition testimony showing the foundation damage resulted from earth movement (soil/soil-support differential movement), and that any plumbing leaks—if present—did not cause the foundational separations.
The trial court denied Farm Bureau's summary-judgment motion; Farm Bureau obtained interlocutory review. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the policy language de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the earth-movement exclusion bars coverage for Smith’s foundation damage	Smith: the water-damage clause covers losses from plumbing leaks; Robertson controls and limits earth-movement exclusions to natural forces, so her loss is covered	Farm Bureau: policy’s earth-movement exclusion unambiguously excludes any earth movement "regardless of any other cause," including human-caused movement (e.g., soil compaction or plumbing leaks)	Held: earth-movement exclusion is unambiguous and bars coverage for Smith’s damage
Whether the specific water-discharge coverage overrides the earth-movement exclusion	Smith: specific water coverage (accidental discharge/overflow) should apply because water leaks caused the damage	Farm Bureau: the water coverage applies "unless the loss is otherwise excluded"; the earth-movement exclusion expressly excludes losses from earth movement even if caused by plumbing leaks	Held: water-damage clause does not supplant the explicit earth-movement exclusion; exclusion governs
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Smith: factual disputes (leaks and damages) preclude summary judgment	Farm Bureau: expert testimony and Smith’s filings show earth movement caused the damage so no genuine issue of material fact remains	Held: no genuine issue; summary judgment for Farm Bureau reversed trial court denial and was rendered in Farm Bureau’s favor

New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 352 So. 2d 1307 (Miss. 1977) (construed an earth-movement exclusion narrowly where context suggested limitation to natural-force earth movement and declined to let the exclusion negate specific plumbing-leak coverage)
Rhoden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 32 F. Supp. 2d 907 (S.D. Miss. 1998) (interpreted an earth-movement exclusion as unambiguous and excluding coverage for earth movement irrespective of cause)
Boteler v. State Farm Cas. Ins. Co., 876 So. 2d 1067 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (affirmed that an unambiguous earth-movement exclusion applies regardless of whether movement was caused by natural forces or human activity)
Hankins v. Maryland Cas. Co., 101 So. 3d 645 (Miss. 2011) (applied similar reasoning to hold an earth-movement exclusion barred coverage for foundation damage caused by soil movement and distinguished Robertson)