A homeowner searching for a low-cost insurance policy for his home purchased an insurance policy for his residence. The property coverage policy differed from a traditional homeowner’s insurance policy in that the property coverage provided reduced coverage for certain types of losses and didn’t cost as much as homeowners coverage would have. The contract provided coverage to the structure as a result of a burglary, however “theft” of personal contents was specifically an excluded loss.
After the policy was issued, the homeowner was burglarized and filed a claim with his insurance company for the loss of personal property associated with the theft. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for theft loss of personal contents, the insurer denied the claim. The homeowner filed a lawsuit alleging there was an improper denial of the claim payment. The homeowner prevailed in the trial court and the insurer appealed.
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals found in favor of the insurance company holding that theft loss was specifically excluded from coverage and that the policy was limited strictly to actual damage to the structure and reversed the trial court decision. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals stated: “Loss of personal property arising out of burglary of insured’s home fell outside scope of covered peril for burglary damage to actual premises.” Jones v. Union Mutual Insurance Company, 295 P.3d 612, 2013 OK CIV APP 12.