Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears arguments over broad ‘earth‑movement’ exclusion in Crystal Ridge insurance dispute
Summary
In Dan Ryan Builders v. Evanston Insurance, counsel disputed whether plaintiffs’ damages arise from excluded "earth movement." Dan Ryan argued some claims (ponding, drainage failures, insect problems) are unrelated to subsidence and could be covered; Evanston argued the complaint and discovery show earth movement is the dominant alleged cause and the policies’ exclusion therefore bars coverage.
Edward Levikoff, representing Dan Ryan Builders, told the court the underlying homeowners’ amended complaint and discovery show multiple asserted damages that are not solely the product of earth movement and that the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes at summary judgment. "There are claims in the case, some potentially covered, some not covered," Levikoff said, urging the appellate court to defer a final coverage ruling until liability and the factual record are clarified.
Evanston’s counsel, Shana Richardson, replied that the initial complaint and later discovery repeatedly tie the plaintiffs’ claims to movement of earth and that the insurer's earth‑movement exclusion is broad and unambiguous. She noted the policies exclude property damage "arising out of, caused by, relating to, contributing to, resulting from, or aggravated by the movement of Earth," and argued that under the record there is no viable potential for coverage. Judges focused on foreseeability, whether claims of defective stormwater management are legally distinct from subsidence, and threshold conditions such as whether self‑insured retentions had been actually paid. The court took the arguments under submission.
