The opinion of the court was delivered by: POLLAK
LOUIS H. POLLAK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The question presented in this diversity case is whether DiRocco Brothers ("DiRocco") - a family firm of four brothers engaged in hauling stone and other heavy construction materials - is entitled to recover from Michigan Mutual Insurance Company ("Michigan Mutual"), on a business auto policy covering DiRocco's vehicles, for the theft of a heavy truck on which DiRocco had just taken delivery but on which DiRocco had only made a small down payment and for which DiRocco had not yet received the certificate of title.
The controlling facts are stipulated:
A. The plaintiffs are Orazio DiRocco, John A. DiRocco, Jr., Richard DiRocco, and Nicholas DiRocco doing business as DiRocco Brothers.
B. The DiRocco Brothers is a partnership organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located at 501 Montgomery Avenue, West Chester, Pa.
C. The main business activity of the partnership consists of hauling stone, asphalt, gravel or other materials to and from construction projects, such as roads, parking lots, et cetera.
D. The partnership has been in business since September 1983.
E. The defendant is the Michigan Mutual Insurance Company with home offices in Detroit, Michigan. The defendant does business in Pennsylvania from an office located at 510 Park Road North, Wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania.
F. The plaintiffs were covered under a business auto policy, a copy of which has been attached to plaintiffs' complaint, which is marked Exhibit A-1. All premiums have been paid on the policy, and the policy was in full force and effect during September 1986.
G. The policy covered all of the vehicles owned by the plaintiffs; i.e. the plaintiffs owned and operated a small fleet of vehicles, each of which was insured pursuant to the Michigan Mutual policy.
H. The Michigan Mutual policy provided for a deductible of $ 250, by which amount any moneys owed to plaintiffs under the theft coverage would be reduced.
I. Plaintiffs were not named insureds under any other policies which insured their vehicles from loss due to theft.