Eugene Wurtele and Nancy Wurtele appeal the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Insurance Company, holding it had no contractual obligation to indemnify the Wurteles for damage to their home caused by the lateral movement of a street adjacent to their property. We affirm.

*684 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., Inc., 173 F.3d 1076, 1085 (8th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is proper if there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Dush v. Appleton Elec. Co., 124 F.3d 957, 962-63 (8th Cir. 1997). However, a “nonmovant must present more than a scintilla of evidence and must advance specific facts to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial.” F.D.I.C. v. Bell, 106 F.3d 258, 263 (8th Cir. 1997).

The district court concluded the insurance policy issued to the Wurteles by Cincinnati Insurance Company excluded coverage for the damage to the insured’s home. We agree with the district court for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned order and affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B.