Rhode Island Subscriber

Manopla v. Travelers Ins. Co., 139 Misc.2d 30, 525 N.Y.S.2d 997 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.,1988), supports the position of the luggage being stolen since the situation is virtually identical; the insured's luggage was missing upon arrival at the airport of final destination. The case states, “Declaration from airline that after thorough search it was found that in all probability insured's missing luggage was stolen or misappropriated was sufficient proof to permit reasonable inference to be drawn that in all probability insured's luggage was stolen and, therefore, was covered by homeowner's policy.” Key to this is the statement from the airline stating that in all likelihood the property was stolen; Couch on Insurance 151:100 asserts that under a theft policy, the insured must produce sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence that it is probable, more likely than not, that the property was stolen or wrongfully taken. Simply showing that the property disappeared is not sufficient to establish a theft.