Ariston Airline & Cater. Sup. Co., Inc. v. Forbes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the term \earth movement\ must be interpreted as referring to natural phenomena
• cracking, shrinking, and bulging, when caused by normal settling, would not be covered, whereas that “resulting from the application of some external force” would be
• foundational damage caused by flooding waters which resulted in frost heaving was outside the settlement damage exclusion because they were caused by an external force
• earth movement exclusion limited to natural phenomena akin to earthquakes, landslides or floods; exclusion did not exclude coverage for frost-heave damage to freezer floor caused by design and construction defects
• relevant time period to determine existence of defects is at the time of the issuance of the insurance contract
• exclusion would not apply to damage resulting from application of some external force or unusual event as opposed, e.g., to “the natural and expected settling of the building”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).