Anti-Concurrent Cause Language Required Claim Denial
Earth Movement Exclusion Effective as Major Cause of Loss
If you are not a subscriber you’re reading the free version of Excellence in Claims Handling and should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button below.
One of Many Causes of Destruction of House was Earth Movement
Post 5111
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gQA-s4zZ and at https://lnkd.in/gujv2ZER, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Anti-Concurrent Cause Language Required Claim Denial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwWkr4SS, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gQA-s4zZ and at https://lnkd.in/gujv2ZER, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Terri Lawrence sued alleging that State Farm breached an insurance contract and acted in bad faith by failing to pay benefits under the contract. The case was removed to the United States District Court based on diversity jurisdiction, and the trial was set to begin on September 8, 2025.
In Terri Lawrence v. State Farm Fire..., No. C24-4008-LTS-MAR, United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division (June 25, 2025) the USDC applied anti-concurrent cause language to dismiss suit.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Relevant Facts
Lawrence purchased a property in Sioux City, Iowa, and insured it with State Farm. In January 2023, a burst water pipe caused significant damage to the property, leading to its condemnation.
On or about January 11, 2023, the Property was placarded as being unfit for human habitation by the Inspection Services Division of the City of Sioux City Iowa because of “major foundation and structural damage due to a burst water pipe.”
ANALYSIS
The earth movement exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage.
The party claiming entitlement to coverage under the policy must prove compliance with its terms.
Because the Policy’s earth movement exclusion unambiguously applies to preclude coverage, Lawrence cannot show that State Farm breached the Policy and her breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law.
Since State Farm had a reasonable basis for denying Lawrence’s claim her bad faith claim fails as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
State Farm’s motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety, the action was dismissed and judgment was entered in favor of State Farm and against plaintiffs.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance litigants must be aware of the anti-concurrent cause language now existing in almost all modern insurance policies before bringing a breach of contract and bad faith suit. “Earth movement” was at least a contributing cause of the damage (and clearly a major one), plaintiffs are not entitled to coverage under the Policy. Even though some of the cause of her damage was a covered peril, earth movement was a major cause and was clearly and unambiguously excluded and State Farm’s claim denial was affirmed.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
