Graham v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co.
Washington Supreme Court
98 Wash. 2d 533, 656 P.2d 1077 (1983)
- Written by Sheryl McGrath, JD
Facts
The Mt. St. Helens volcano erupted in May 1980. The resulting volcanic gases and hot ash melted nearby snow and ice, and the eruption cloud led to heavy rainfall. The meltwater and rain flowed into Spirit Lake, and the water displacement created mudflows. Ten hours after the eruption, a mudflow destroyed homes that were about 20 miles from the volcano. The homeowners, including Graham (plaintiff), had insurance contracts with Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co. (PEMCO) (defendant). The PEMCO insurance contract covered direct loss by fire and explosion. However, the contract excluded coverage of loss resulting directly or indirectly from earth movement. The contract did not define the term earth movement. A prior version of the contract had specifically excluded coverage from volcanic eruption and mudflow, but the specific exclusion was not in the version of the contract that PEMCO issued to Graham. Graham sought coverage under the insurance contract. PEMCO denied coverage and asserted that Graham’s loss was excluded by the earth-movement exclusion. Graham filed suit against PEMCO for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PEMCO, upon finding that the immediate physical cause of Graham’s loss was earth movement, and that the losses were therefore excluded from coverage under the contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
