California Supreme Court Rules That Weather Conditions Clause in Homeowner's Policy Does Not Violate Proximate Cause Rule
April, 2005
The California Supreme Court has recently held that an insurer may, consistent with the efficient proximate cause doctrine, rely on the weather conditions clause of a homeowner's policy to deny coverage for losses proximately caused by a rain-induced landslide. Julian, et al. v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 110 P.3d 903 (Ca. 2005).
Facts
In February 1998, following heavy rains, a slope failed above the West Hills, California home of Frank and Carole Julian. The slope failure led to a landslide, which in turn caused a tree to crash into the Julians' house. The Julians presented a claim to Hartford for the resulting damage under a standard form homeowner's insurance policy. Hartford denied coverage for all but a minor part of the damage, relying upon, among other exclusions, a provision that excluded coverage for losses caused by weather conditions that “contribute in any way with” another excluded cause or event. Hartford asserted that the excluded cause or event was the landslide (an excluded peril under the earth movement exclusion) and the weather condition was the rain.
The Julians sued Hartford for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hartford subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Julians' policy excluded each of the perils that Hartford had identified as the possible efficient proximate causes of the loss, one of which was weather conditions that “contribute[d] in any way with” another excluded cause or event, the landslide. The trial court agreed with Hartford that the policy excluded each of the possible efficient proximate causes of the loss, and granted Hartford summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed and the California Supreme Court granted review specifically to decide if the weather conditions clause runs afoul of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
Analysis
The Court began by noting that California Insurance Code section 530 incorporates into California law the efficient proximate cause doctrine, under which there exists coverage for a loss that is caused by a combination of covered and specifically excluded risks if the covered risk was the predominant cause of the loss. Conversely, the loss is not covered if the covered risk was only a remote cause of the loss, or the excluded risk was the predominant cause. The Court observed that the efficient proximate cause doctrine was “the preferred method for resolving first party insurance disputes involving losses caused by multiple risks or perils, at least one of which is covered by insurance and one of which is not.”
The weather conditions clause in the Julians' policy excluded losses caused by weather conditions, but only where those conditions “contribute[d] in any way with” earth movement, water damage, or another excluded peril. Consequently, losses caused by weather conditions that did not “contribute in any way with” earth movement (or another excluded peril) were covered under the terms of the policy. The Julians argued that the “contribute in any way” language allowed the insurer to defeat coverage for a loss proximately caused by weather conditions merely by finding a remote peril somewhere -- no matter how distant, minor, or independent from the weather conditions -- in the causal background.
The California Supreme Court, while acknowledging that application of such an exclusion could in certain situations turn on even the most minor contribution of a remote, excluded peril such as earth movement, nevertheless held that Hartford could rely on the exclusion to deny coverage in the instant case. The Court reasoned that rain inducing a landslide was a commonly understood risk of loss and that the frequent and direct causal relationship between rain and landslide is widely and easily understood. In that regard, the Court noted that Hartford's engineer's report had attested that the type of slope failure involved in the instant case was “always” caused by water, and that the Julians had not presented any evidence that weather conditions had caused their loss in any way apart from the rain's role in triggering the landslide. Thus, because the landslide was a specifically excluded peril under the earth movement exclusion, and the rain was the efficient proximate cause behind the landslide, the Court held that Hartford could rely on the weather conditions clause to deny coverage, and that it did not violate section 530 or the efficient proximate cause rule.
Learning Point:
While the California Supreme Court upheld the weather conditions clause in the instant case, it appears that similar exclusionary language may not be given effect where the excluded peril has in fact only contributed to an otherwise covered loss in a minor or insignificant way, i.e. was not really the proximate cause of the loss. Thus, under California law, an insurer should be aware in making a coverage determination that its ability to rely on such exclusions will be subject to the limits of the efficient proximate cause doctrine, though not necessarily foreclosed by it.•
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2005v2) 2005 Volume 2 Table of Contents
