Opinion ID: 1214424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: definition of ambiguity

Text: In syllabus point one of State v. Janicki 188 W.Va. 100, 422 S.E.2d 822 (1992), we explained that `[w]henever the language of an insurance policy provision is reasonably susceptible of two different meanings or is of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning, it is ambiguous.' Syl. Pt. 1, Prete v. Merchants Property Ins. Co., 159 W.Va. 508, 223 S.E.2d 441 (1976). In syllabus point one of Berkeley County Public Service District v. Vitro Corp. of America, 152 W.Va. 252, 162 S.E.2d 189 (1968), this Court cautioned that [t]he mere fact that parties do not agree to the construction of a contract does not render it ambiguous. The question as to whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court. Id. at 267, 162 S.E.2d at 200. See also Eggleston v. West Virginia Dept. of Highways, 189 W.Va. 230, 429 S.E.2d 636 (1993). This Court also cautioned in Payne, however, that a court should read policy provisions to avoid ambiguities and not torture the language to create them. 195 W.Va. at 507, 466 S.E.2d at 166. Construction of the language is undertaken only when it is determined that an actual ambiguity exists. [2] Only if the court makes the determination that the contract cannot be given a certain and definite legal meaning, and is therefore ambiguous, can a question of fact be submitted to the jury as to the meaning of the contract. It is only when the document has been found to be ambiguous that the determination of intent through extrinsic evidence become a question of fact. Id. Although the contract at issue in the present case is poorly drafted, its meaning can still be discerned. There is disagreement between the parties regarding the proper interpretation of the language, but as we emphasized in Berkeley County Public Service District, such disagreement does not render the language ambiguous. 152 W.Va. at 267, 162 S.E.2d at 200. In our de novo review of the determination of whether ambiguity exists, we conclude that the language is not ambiguous. The language declares that Nationwide covers direct physical loss to property caused by explosion. Explosion, however, does not include four specified things: (1) shock waves caused by aircraft; (2) electrical arcing; (3) water hammer; or (4) rupture of water pipes. We conclude that the lower court erred in determining that the language was ambiguous and in finding that the Appellees were entitled to coverage under this policy language. We therefore reverse the decision of the lower court. Reversed.