State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bongen
1996 Alas. LEXIS 126, 925 P.2d 1042 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer may use clear and unambiguous language in an insurance policy to contract out of the common law efficient proximate cause doctrine. Public policy does not prohibit the enforcement of an exclusion for a specific peril that applies regardless of its cause, even if the initial cause is an otherwise covered peril.
Facts:
- Jerome and Elizabeth Bongen owned a home on Pillar Mountain in Kodiak, Alaska.
- In the late 1980s, Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) clear-cut a right-of-way and installed transmission lines on property above the Bongen home.
- The Bongens' expert asserted that the KEA construction project contributed to or caused the subsequent damage to their home.
- On October 31, 1991, following heavy rains, a mudslide occurred and destroyed the Bongen home.
- The Bongens held a homeowner's insurance policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
- The policy contained an exclusion for any loss resulting from 'Earth Movement,' stating the exclusion applied 'regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event... (d) whether the event... arises from natural or external forces.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Bongens filed a claim with their insurer, State Farm, which was denied based on the earth movement exclusion.
- The Bongens sued State Farm, KEA, and the City of Kodiak in the Alaska superior court (the court of first instance).
- State Farm moved for partial summary judgment, and the Bongens filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- The superior court granted the Bongens' motion, holding that the 'efficient proximate cause' rule rendered State Farm's exclusion unenforceable as against public policy.
- State Farm (petitioner) petitioned for review of the superior court's decision to the Supreme Court of Alaska (the highest court), and the petition was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unambiguous insurance policy provision that excludes coverage for losses resulting from earth movement 'regardless of the cause' violate public policy by attempting to contract around the efficient proximate cause doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, Chief Justice
No. An unambiguous insurance policy provision excluding coverage for losses from a specific peril, regardless of its cause, does not violate public policy and is enforceable. The court held that parties are free to contract, and the obligations of insurers are determined by the plain language of their policies. The court explicitly sided with the majority of jurisdictions that allow insurers to contract out of the efficient proximate cause rule. It distinguished this case from Washington and California precedents, noting the California rule is based on a specific statute that Alaska does not have. The policy language, including the phrases 'regardless of the cause' and 'natural or external forces,' was deemed unambiguous and clearly excluded both natural and man-made earth movement, aligning with the insured's own admitted understanding of the policy and defeating any claim based on the doctrine of reasonable expectations.
Dissenting - Matthews, Justice
Yes. An insurance policy provision that excludes coverage for losses resulting from earth movement 'regardless of the cause' should be unenforceable as against public policy when a covered peril is the efficient proximate cause of the loss. The dissent argued for adopting the efficient proximate cause doctrine, which aligns with the reasonable expectations of the insured. Under this view, if a covered peril (such as third-party negligence from the construction) is the dominant cause that sets in motion a chain of events, coverage should exist even if a secondary, excluded peril (earth movement) is also part of that chain. The dissent favored the California and Washington approach, asserting that the purpose of insurance is to insure, and it is reasonable for a policyholder to expect coverage when a covered peril is the dominant force that brings about a loss.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that in Alaska, the principle of freedom of contract in insurance policies supersedes the common law efficient proximate cause doctrine when the policy's exclusionary language is clear and unambiguous. It empowers insurers to draft specific 'anti-concurrent causation' clauses to precisely define the limits of their liability, even when a covered peril initiates a chain of events leading to a loss from an excluded peril. This ruling solidifies a pro-insurer, plain-language approach to policy interpretation, placing a heavy burden on policyholders to scrutinize exclusions, as courts will not use common law doctrines to override the explicit terms of the contract.
