Fayad v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that whether specific damage “comes within the scope of the exclusionary clause is a question of law”
• stating that whether damage claimed under an insurance policy falls within an exclusion is a question of law subject to de novo review
• contrasting provision at issue there with policies precluding coverage for earth movement “regardless of the cause of the excluded event”
• finding earth movement exclusion at issue mentioned only naturally-occurring phenomena and therefore did not cover blasting activities
• adopting the interpretation of a majority of courts which have construed an all-risk insurance policy that contains an \earth movement exclusion\ but does not contain a lead-in provision excluding coverage for damage from earth movement \regardless\ of its cause
• noting the canon of ejusdem generis “provides that where general words follow an enumeration of specific words, the general words are construed as applying to the same kind or class as those that are specifically mentioned”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).