Opinion ID: 1809635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ambiguity in the different sections of the policy.

Text: ¶ 6. The personal liability section of the policy states, Subject to the limits of liability shown on your declaration, we will pay all sums, except punitive damages, arising out of any loss which you become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage covered by this policy. The personal liability section is further explained in the limits of liability section which states that Farm Bureau's liability is limited to damages resulting from any one occurrence. The policy's definition of occurrence is an accident including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions. Immediately following the personal liability section is the medical coverage section which states: Each person who sustains bodily injury is entitled to this protection when that person is ... (2) elsewhere if the injury 3. Is caused by an animal in your care. The Crums and Langfords argue that conditions in the personal liability section cannot include animals because of the precise definition of bodily injuries caused by an animal in the medical coverage section. ¶ 7. Farm Bureau responds to this argument by asserting that the medical coverage section is an entirely different section which limits conditions to premises conditions and damages caused by animals. Farm Bureau also argues that the occurrence definition found in the personal liability section is purposefully broader to include all conditions. ¶ 8. On the contrary, we find that the policy is ambiguous. The broad term conditions in the personal liability section, read with the definition of bodily injury sustained by animals specifically defined in the medical coverage section of the policy, creates an ambiguity. It is well-established law in our state that insurance policies are to be construed strictly against the drafting party, any ambiguities in an insurance contract must be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured and a finding of coverage. Burton v. Choctaw County, 730 So.2d 1, 8 (Miss.1997)(citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga, 636 So.2d 658, 662 (Miss. 1994)). The personal liability section and the medical coverage section of the policy conflict; therefore, the policy is ambiguous.