Kentucky

Stds of Review: Insurance Policy, Contract Interpretation

By Michael Stevens

From Stamper v. Hyden, COA, Published, 2/18/2011

The interpretation of an insurance contract is generally reserved for the court as a matter of law. Stone v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 34 S.W.3d 809, 810 (Ky. App. 2000). ?The words employed in insurance policies, if clear and unambiguous, should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.? Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nolan, 10 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Ky. 1999). However, if the court determines that contractual language is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, it must resolve the ambiguity in favor of the insured. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Powell-Walton-Milward, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Ky. 1994). ?An ambiguity may either appear on the face of the policy or . . . when a provision is applied to a particular claim.? Id.

Full post as published by Kentucky Cases on February 20, 2011 (boomark / email).