The Supreme Court of Delaware has decided that the Superior court properly granted summary judgment to an insurer regarding a collapsed pedestrian bridge located at a homeowners' residence because the earth movement exclusion in the homeowners' insurance policy unambiguously applied to the bridge and because the anticoncurrent causation clause contained in the policy also applied. The case is Monzo v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 199, 2020, 2021 Del. LEXIS 100 (Mar. 11, 2021)

In 2011, Eric and Dana Monzo purchased a homeowners insurance policy issued by Nationwide Property & Casualty Co. (Nationwide). The policy contained standard water damage and earth movement exclusion with the option of water backup coverage. At the time of the purchase, Nationwide hired a company to do an inspection of the property. The report described the property including two pedestrian bridges crossing a stream. After reviewing the report, Nationwide required the Monzos to sign a document acknowledging that they did not purchase flood insurance. The Monzos signed the document, but were under the impression that the election applied only to the buildings on the property and not other structures on the property.

July 2017 brought heavy storms, including one thunderstorm which destroyed a pedestrian bridge and retaining wall on the Monzo's property, near their residence. A pair of reports prepared after the storm indicated that several factors contributed to the damage, including water backups from drainage systems, scouring of supporting earth embankments, heavy rain, and tree debris. The property owners filed a claim with Nationwide, seeking coverage under their homeowner's policy.