Burglary insurance cover requires proof of forcible entry; contra proferentem cannot enlarge clear policy terms.

A burglary and house breaking policy requires proof of actual, forcible and violent entry before liability arises, so a theft-only claim falls outside cover. Insurance contracts must be construed strictly on their terms, and the court cannot add to or subtract from clear policy language. The rule of contra proferentem applies only where genuine ambiguity exists; it cannot be used to enlarge an unambiguous clause. Because the clause was clear and materially identical to wording previously construed by the court, the insurer was not liable in the absence of proof of forcible entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim under a burglary and house breaking insurance policy is maintainable without proof of forcible entry and whether the rule of contra proferentem applies to enlarge the cover.

Analysis: The policy covered loss or damage by burglary or house breaking, understood as theft following actual, forcible and violent entry. On a plain reading, forcible entry was a condition precedent to liability, and a claim based on theft alone was not within the policy. Insurance contracts are to be construed strictly according to their terms, and the Court cannot add to or subtract from the wording of the policy. The rule of contra proferentem applies only where there is real ambiguity. Since the relevant clause was clear and identical in substance to the clause previously construed by the Court, there was no room to invoke that rule.

Conclusion: The claim was not maintainable in the absence of proof of forcible entry, and the insurer was not liable under the policy.

---