Opinion ID: 1707963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: vandalism or malicious mischief

Text: Farmers contends the district court erred in remanding the case for a trial on the merits because the Rohdes failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the water in the oil barrel had resulted from an intentional, malicious act, as required under the insurance coverage. The policy states in relevant part: This policy under this form insures against direct loss to the property covered by the following perils.... Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, meaning only the wilful and malicious damage to or destruction of the property covered.... When asserting a breach of an insurance contract, the plaintiff has the burden of bringing his claim within the limitations of the policy. The Rohdes must therefore prove both that the loss was the result of the vandalism and that it was accompanied by intent and malice. See Craig v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 239 Neb. 271, 476 N.W.2d 529 (1991). See, also, Ditloff v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 225 Neb. 375, 406 N.W.2d 101 (1987); Swedberg v. Battle Creek Mut. Ins. Co., 218 Neb. 447, 356 N.W.2d 456 (1984). We have addressed the issue of coverage under the vandalism and mischief clause of an insurance policy in several cases. See, Craig v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., supra ; Ditloff v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., supra ; Swedberg v. Battle Creek Mut. Ins. Co., supra . In Swedberg v. Battle Creek Mut. Ins. Co ., we held that to recover under a policy insuring against loss caused by vandalism and malicious mischief, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the damage was caused by acts intended to damage the property in question. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to sustain a verdict depending solely thereon for support, unless the circumstances proved by the evidence are of such a nature and so related to each other that the conclusion reached by the jury is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn therefrom. Ditloff v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., supra . In Ditloff v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co ., we addressed the issues of intent and malice. The plaintiffs sought payment from their insurance company under a substantially similar clause to the one at issue in this case. They alleged that vandals had willfully and maliciously opened the gate on one of their grain trailers, causing corn to flow from the trailer onto the ground. Some of the plaintiffs' cattle ate excessive quantities of corn and died.