Opinion ID: 802320
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Policy Coverage

Text: A court sitting in diversity applies the law of the forum state and, in the absence of direct state court precedent, must make its best prediction as to how the highest state court would resolve the issues presented. Stalbosky v. Belew, 205 F.3d 890, 893-94 (6th Cir. 2000). Ohio law governs the Carolina Policy. Under Ohio law, an insurance policy is a contract whose interpretation is a matter of law. City of Sharonville v. Am. Emp’rs Ins. Co., 846 N.E.2d 833, 836 (Ohio 2006). Contract terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. However, if provisions are susceptible of more than one interpretation, they must be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 948 N.E.2d 931, 935 (Ohio 2011). “[A]n exclusion in an insurance policy will be interpreted as applying only to that which is clearly intended to be excluded.” Sharonville, 846 N.E.2d at 836 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). -4- No. 11-3989 Schwartz Manes Ruby & Slovin v. Monitor Liability Managers, et al. SMRS switched legal malpractice insurance carriers in 2008. From June 29, 2007 through June 28, 2008, SMRS utilized American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, but effective June 29, 2008 SMRS switched to a new carrier, Carolina. The relevant portion of the Carolina Policy reads as follows: