Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ambiguous. See, e.g., Phillips v. Estate of Greenfield, 859 P.2d 1101, 1104 (Okla.1993). A contract provision is ambiguous only if it can be interpreted as having two different meanings. E.g., Little-field v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 857 P.2d 65, 69 (Okla.1993). If it is not ambiguous, it is construed in its plain and ordinary sense. E.g., Phillips, 859 P.2d at 1104. If it is ambiguous, it is construed in favor of the insured. E.g., Littlefield, 857 P.2d at 69. The bodily injury provision of the policy and its accompanying amendatory endorsement excluding coverage for indemnification or contribution claims based on bodily injuries are not ambiguous because they are capable of only one interpretation. Cf. Pearson Servs., Inc. v. INA Ins. Co., 937 F.2d 401, 402, 403 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Easier Corp., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person (B) holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured (C) holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled (D) holding that the policys exclusion of coverage for any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of such bodily injury operates where the genesis of the action is an employees workrelated bodily injury quoting national union fire ins co 906 f2d at 200 (E) holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party
Output (English): holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party