## Facts

- Max W. Cochran held a homeowner’s insurance policy with MFA Mutual Insurance Co. covering personal property, including tools, subject to exclusions for theft away from the described premises.
- The policy excluded loss of property “while unattended in or on any motor vehicle” unless (1) the loss resulted from forcible entry while all openings were closed and locked and there were “visible marks of forcible entry upon the exterior of such vehicle,” or (2) the vehicle itself was stolen and not recovered within 30 days.
- Cochran parked his car, testified he locked it and closed the windows, and left tools inside.
- He returned to find the car missing and reported it stolen.
- The car was recovered the same afternoon a few miles away; the tools were missing.
- A “jiggle key” was found in the ignition; Cochran testified as an expert that such a key can be manipulated to gain entry and operate many vehicles.
- It was undisputed that there were no visible marks of forcible entry on the exterior of the vehicle.
- MFA denied coverage for the stolen tools based on the exclusion.

## Issues

1. Whether the policy’s requirement of “visible marks of forcible entry upon the exterior” is ambiguous or merely an evidentiary requirement that can be satisfied by other proof of entry.
2. Whether coverage is excluded when entry is allegedly accomplished with a jiggle key and leaves no visible exterior marks, and the vehicle is recovered within 30 days.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed judgment for MFA.
- The “visible marks of forcible entry upon the exterior” requirement was unambiguous and operated as a limitation of liability, not a rule of evidence.
- Because there were no visible exterior marks and the vehicle was recovered the same day, the loss fell within the exclusion and MFA was not liable for the stolen tools.

## Legal Principles

- When an insurance policy’s limitation of liability is unambiguous, courts enforce it as written and do not construe it in favor of the insured.
- A “visible marks of forcible entry upon the exterior” condition in a theft-from-vehicle provision may define the scope of coverage; proof of theft by other means does not substitute for the contractually required visible marks.
- If a policy provides an alternative basis for coverage (vehicle stolen and not recovered within a stated period), that alternative does not apply when the vehicle is recovered within the period.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the homeowner’s policy exclusion requiring visible exterior marks of forcible entry for theft from an unattended vehicle, holding that even credible evidence of entry by a jiggle key could not create coverage absent the specified visible marks.


Cochran v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 201 Neb. 631, 271 N.W.2d 331 (1978)