When the Ground Gives Way, So Does Coverage: New York Applies Earth Movement Exclusion to Adjacent Construction | Cozen O'Connor's Property Insurance Law Observer

What happened

of New York , 204 A.D.3d 525 (1st Dep’t 2022), which applied Bentoria to dismiss a similar claim at the pleading stage and rejected the argument that a covered “vibrations” theory could avoid the exclusion, reasoning that “[e]ven if vibrations caused the damage, the excavation was still a contributing cause of the damage.” . Travelers Indemnity Co ., 20 N.Y.3d 65 (2012), the Court of Appeals held that an earth movement exclusion with the same operative language — expressly reaching “man made or other artificial causes” — is unambiguous and excludes damage caused by “the intentional removal of earth by humans,” such as excavation. The decision is a useful reminder for insurers of the importance of exclusion wording: the “naturally occurring or … man-made” qualifier, paired with “directly or indirectly” causation language, allows the exclusion to reach the entire loss even where a covered cause is alleged to have contributed.

Key details

• Travelers Indemnity Co ., 20 N.Y.3d 65 (2012), the Court of Appeals held that an earth movement exclusion with the same operative language — expressly reaching “man made or other artificial causes” — is unambiguous and excludes damage caused by “the intentional removal of earth by humans,” such as excavation.
• The decision is a useful reminder for insurers of the importance of exclusion wording: the “naturally occurring or … man-made” qualifier, paired with “directly or indirectly” causation language, allows the exclusion to reach the entire loss even where a covered cause is alleged to have contributed.
• 21, 2026), the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss, holding that an insured’s claim for cracking and settlement damage caused by construction next door fell squarely within the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

Why it matters to restoration

This belongs on an operator’s radar because insurance behavior sets the rules for documentation, scope disputes, cash flow and customer expectations. If the article points to a carrier, court or coverage trend, the practical question is what proof your next file needs before the argument starts.

What to check next

Check whether your estimates, photos, notes and customer updates would survive the same dispute described in the article.

Read original article ↗