When Bentoria Holdings' building was damaged by excavation work being performed in the area, its insurer--Travelers Indemnity Company--disclaimed coverage under an "earth-movement exclusion." (Apparently, the policy excepted any loss attributable to "earthquakes, landslides, and mine subsidence," and from "'(e)arth sinking, ... rising or shifting,'" no matter how caused.)
When Bentoria filed suit, the Kings County Supreme Court refused to throw the case out, and Travelers appealed.
While the policy excluded coverage for any damage resulting from natural or manmade earth movements, since the governing language wasn't as clear as it needed to be (and because such provisions are strictly and narrowly construed), the Appellate Division, Second Department, thought the case needed to proceed to trial. (Apparently, the policy made no reference to "excavations.")
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.