Case ID: ohio-law-abs_6/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OLMSTED & CO. v. MET. LIFE INS. CO.
    Ohio Supreme Court.
    No. 20825.
    Decided Apr. 18, 1928.
    647. INSURANCE. — 1277 Words and Phrases.
    1. Where numerous courts have construed language of insurance contract, and have arrived at conflicting conclusions as to correct meaning, question of ambiguity ceases to be open one.
    2. Rule that ambiguous language is to be construed against party selecting it, and in favor of party sought to be charged, especially applicable subsequent to such conflicting judicial constructions.
    Error to Cuyahoga Appeals.
    Judgment affirmed.
   1. Where the language of a clause used in an insurance contract is such that courts of numerous jurisdictions have found it necessary to construe it and in such construction have arrived at conflicting conclusions as to the correct meaning, intent and effect thereof, the question whether such clause is ambiguous ceases to be an open one.

2. The rule that ambiguous language is to be construed most strongly against the party selecting the language and most favorably toward the party sought to be charged, is especially applicable to contracts executed subsequently to such conflicting judicial constructions.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.)