It has been held under Wisconsin law that an unambiguous earth movement exclusion must be enforced as it is written in the insurance policy, and not as case law might have it:
The clear and unambiguous terms of the policy show that the earth movement exclusion may apply to the floor-related damage Hansen sustained to its cold storage facility. The policy broadly excludes from coverage losses caused by any earth movement except a sinkhole collapse. It’s undisputed that the freezer floor was damaged from frost heaving, not from a sinkhole collapse. Thus, the rising or shifting of earth that caused the floor-related damage is a type of earth movement that is plainly excluded from coverage under the policy. [Citations omitted.] Because the terms of the earth movement exclusion are unambiguous, the exclusion must be enforced as written and without resort to principles of caselaw.
Hansen Storage Co. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 734 F. Supp. 3d 850, 859 (E.D. Wis. 2024) (Dries, U.S.M.J.; emphasis added).
Please read the disclaimer. ©2025 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law? Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.