What do you think?

Florida Subscriber

A

In the case you cite, Travelers Indemnity Company v. Universal Time., Inc., 430 So. 2d 987 (1983), the court held that the insured must essentially prove that a theft occurred because the peril did not contain any “inclusion [or] provision making it unnecessary to show a theft had occurred.” In the Travelers case, the policy covered loss from “theft” without any of the qualifying or broadening language that exists in the current homeowners form—specifically, “theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known place when it is likely that the property has been stolen.”

An Ohio case involved luggage that disappeared from outside a hotel (it was placed there along with luggage belonging to others awaiting transportation to the airline). The policy covered “loss of property from a known place when it is likely that theft occurred.” And, though settlement involved the insurer, the hotel, and the airline, it is notable that all parties assumed a theft had occurred. There was no burden of proof on the insured to prove a theft (but note that policy conditions require a theft be reported to the police).