Markline Co., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.

The plaintiff purchased a “Store-owners 700” policy from the defendant through its agent. This policy purported on its face to provide coverage for (1) personal property damage, (2) general liability, and (3) crime, specifically “burglary.” The word “burglary” is defined in later pages of the multipage policy to require “visible marks” before recovery might be had.1 The fact of loss is not in dispute.

The trial judge found there were no “visible marks” of entry or exit yet found for plaintiff without further explanation in the written findings and rulings. This court now sets aside that…