Opinion ID: 340678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the insurance companies' appeal.

Text: 10 A. Instructions on theft and mysterious disappearance. The insurance policies provided that the companies would be liable for the loss of cattle  through theft, but excluding . . . mysterious disappearance. The insurance companies contend that, under Alabama law, Coastal Plains carried both the burden of proving that theft was the cause of the loss, and the burden of proving that mysterious disappearance was not the cause of the loss. 5 They further contend that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that Coastal Plains carried the latter burden as well as the former. We find it unnecessary to decide whether the burden of disproving mysterious disappearance was on Coastal Plains rather than the insurance companies; for assuming that it was on Coastal Plains, 6 the district court's instructions sufficiently apprised the jury that Coastal Plains was required to disprove mysterious disappearance in order to recover. 7 11 The district court did not just tell the jury that Coastal Plains must carry the burden of proving theft to recover under the policy. Rather, it told the jury repeatedly that Coastal Plains must prove that theft, and not mysterious disappearance, was the cause of its loss: 12 (D)efendants deny that Coastal Plains suffered any loss covered under these insurance policies since Coastal Plains has by the evidence shown nothing more than a mysterious disappearance of cattle and . . . a mysterious disappearance of cattle is not covered or compensable under these policies. 13