The roof of a cave near the top of a bluff partially collapsed, causing rocks to cascade down and damage a house below. A 500-ton boulder was lodged dangerously directly above the dwelling. Claim by the property owners was denied by their homeowners insurer on the basis of the following exclusion in the policy:

"We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by....any earth movement (other than sinkhole collapse), such as an earthquake, landslide, mine subsidence, earth sinking, rising or shifting...." The exclusion was qualified by a statement that "....such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss."

The insureds sued the insurer, contending that their claim was within the exclusion's exception for sinkhole collapse (defined as "the sudden sinking or collapse of land into underground empty spaces created by the action of water on limestone or dolomite"). They appealed trial court judgment in favor of the insurance company.

The appeal court carefully examined pertinent language in the exclusion, notably the meaning of "landslide." It found that popular dictionaries defined it to include the falling or sliding of rock, as well as soil, down a steep slope. It concluded that there was no ambiguity in the terms and provisions.

The court underscored the clear statement in the policy that the exclusion was applicable regardless of any other cause that might contribute to excluded loss. This rendered ineffective the insureds' contention that sinkhole collapse possibly precipitated the rockslide.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurance company and against the insureds.

(DUPPS ET UX., Appellants v. THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. United States Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit. No. 95-3464. April 5, 1996. CCH 1996 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5647.)