Auto Insurance Claims: claim rejected, Contract of adhesion

Question
In December, my travel trailer was burglarized.  It was locked at the time at was in a secured storage yard.  Several other trailers were also burglarized the same night.  The owner of the storage yard called the owners of the trailers and we all filed police reports. I filed an insurance claim also.  I gave my insurance company a list of items that were stolen from the trailer, with receipts, dates of purchases, and costs; along with a copy of the police report.  An adjuster came out to look at the trailer and even spoke to the owner of the yard to verify that other people had their trailers broken into.  I just received a letter from my insurance saying that they are denying my claim because their wording states that there needs to be “signs of forced entry” to pay.  The police report states “no signs of forced entry” and there were no pry marks or broken locks or windows.  We know that they entered all of the trailers by pulling open the storage compartment doors, which only have one lock.  From there, they crawled into the storage area and push up on the bed and make entry into the trailer.  My police report even states that all of the locks on the storage compartments and the main door were still in the locked position with the doors opened.  That alone should be a sign of forced entry in my opinion.

Answer
I don't see a question here.  What is it you would like to know?  

If your insurance company is denying the claim, and you feel that they owe the claim, the only course of action you have is to take legal action and sue the carrier for breach of contract.  It does seem fairly silly to deny a burglary claim based on no signs of forced entry.

The wording sounds ambiguous to me.  How would there be signs of a picked lock, for example?  When contract language is ambiguous and the contract itself is one of adhesion, meaning one side has to basically "adhere" to the policy language without being able to negotiate the terms (like insurance policies), then when litigated it is normally the case that ambiguous language is construed in the favor of the adhering party to the contract.  

It's sort of complicated, but basically you can argue the sign of forced entry is the locked and open position of the storage compartment, and if you sue it is likely that the wording in the policy will not work in the favor of the insurance company.

I hope this helps, and feel free to contact my office directly if you need further info.  Information is always free at Petty Details, LLC, look it up.