Structural damage to a dwelling from vibrations caused by nearby man-made explosions led to coverage uncertainties and legal action. The insureds appealed a trial court's grant of judgment to the insurer that was based on the earth movement exclusion in their homeowners policy.

The "form 3" policy provided dwelling coverage for accidental direct physical loss to the structure except as specifically excluded. Relevant to the damage for which claim is made, there was an exclusion for:

"Earth movement, meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding or contracting of earth, all whether combined with water or not. Earth movement includes but is not limited to earthquake, landslide, mudflow, sinkhole, subsidence and erosion...."

The central issue for the appeal court was whether the earth movement exclusion was applicable only to natural causes, as distinguished from man-made occurrences of the kind under review here. It noted that all of the examples of excluded earth movement in the policy definition of the term arose from natural causes.

The court found it reasonable that a general term must be construed in line with examples used in a document to describe it. It concluded that, from the language and examples employed in the policy, a wider sense of the meaning of "earth movement" was not intended. It was limited to earth movement from natural causes.

The policy provided coverage for loss caused by explosion (undefined) by virtue of its broad insuring provisions. The court determined that vibration damage ensuing from man-made explosions was not subject to the earth movement exclusion.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of the insureds and against the insurer.

(COX ET AL, Appellants v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. Georgia Court of Appeals, Second Division. No. A95A0596. July 11, 1995. CCH 1996 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5518.)