In Jones v. Union Mutual, 2013 OK CIV APP 12, Jones had a "home property" policy with Union.  When his house was broken into, the claim was denied because there was no theft coverage under the policy.  Jones sued in small claims court and won, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed.  The policy covered burglary damage — i.e., damage to the house caused by burglars, but did not cover the property actually stolen.  Jones did not read his policy and claimed not to have received it.  Jones’ only recollection as to these policy distinctions was that, "He (agent) present me the prices and the coverage. I picked the one at the lowest cost. That’s because we all poor and trying to get the best for the mostest (sic) with the leastest (sic) so I picked that policy."

The policy language for the covered peril provides:

9. Burglary Damage – This means damage to covered property caused by burglars. However, we do not pay for loss on the insured premises if the residence is vacant for more than 30 days in a row just before the loss. A residence being built is not vacant.

This language is only susceptible to one reasonable construction. Coverage is limited to actual damage done to just the "Coverage A – Residence" or the "Coverage B – Related Private Structures" sections as Union argues. We therefore reject Jones’ argument that the first sentence covers damage in the form of theft loss to "Coverage C – Personal Property."

We hold this provision is unambiguous as a matter of law. Had Jones read the policy, we hold he could not reasonably expect the policy to provide coverage for personal property theft loss. The trial court’s judgment is therefore reversed.