Our claims department believes that the provision as it pertains to this loss is ambiguous, and as the insurance contract is a contract of adhesion, they paid the $1000 limit for this coverage extension.

I maintain the clause is perfectly clear — bale, case and package are singular, not plural, therefore, coverage applies up to $1000 per package for all packages. If all the furnace motors were on a single pallet in the truck and banded together, this might constitute a bale or package, but if the individual packages are loose, coverage would be limited to the highest valued package, but not more than $1000.

Ohio Subscriber

A

The property in transit coverage extension applies to personal property lost or damaged as a result of theft of an entire bale, case or package by forced entry into a locked vehicle. Coverage is limited to $1000.

We disagree with your claims department that the clause is ambiguous; however, we also disagree with your opinion that coverage is limited to a single bale, case or package. We think the phrase “loss must be caused by or result from . . . theft of an entire bale, case or package” limits coverage to only the theft of bundled items, and excludes coverage for individual or loose-laying tools and equipment. However, we do not think that the use of the descriptive word an (entire bale or case) can be used to limit coverage to one bale or case. Inasmuch as exclusionary language in an insurance policy must be construed narrowly in favor of the insured, without more specific language limiting coverage to one, or single, bale or case, then coverage applies to all bales or cases stolen, up to the $1000 limit.