Opinion ID: 1347933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: ambiguity in the contract

Text: ¶ 15 Wynn argues that the policy was ambiguous and should be construed to include in-flight damage to the aircraft. In a table on the front page, the policy stated the extent of liability coverage, stated the extent of coverage for damage to the aircraft together with the in-flight exclusion, and stated that medical liability coverage for family members was not included. Under the table, the policy stated: This policy applies when your insured aircraft is in flight, only while being operated by one of the following pilots who holds a currently effective Pilot Certificate (unless a pre-solo student pilot) issued by the FFA. The statement then listed Ralph H. Wynn and made provisions for other pilots under which the policy would apply during their operation of the aircraft. ¶ 16 An insurance policy will be liberally construed so as to give a reasonable effect to all of its provisions. Dobson v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 1991 OK 24, ¶ 11, 812 P.2d 372, 376. In Wiley v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1974 OK 147, ¶ 16, 534 P.2d 1293, 1295-96, this Court stated: Parties to [an] insurance contract are at liberty to contract for insurance to cover such risks as they see fit and are bound by terms of [the] contract[,] and courts will not undertake to rewrite terms thereof. The construction of an insurance policy should be a natural and reasonable one, fairly construed to effectuate its purpose.... A policy of insurance is a contract and should be construed as every other contract, that is, where not ambiguous, according to its terms. An insurance company may limit the risk for which it is responsible. ¶ 17 It is a court's duty to determine, as a matter of law, whether a contract is ambiguous. Dobson, 1991 OK 24, ¶ 12, 812 P.2d at 376. A court will not create an ambiguity by using a forced or strained construction, by taking a provision out of context, or by narrowly focusing on a provision. Id. The rule that policies are to be construed against the insurer has no application where the provisions are susceptible of only one reasonable construction. 1991 Ok 24, ¶ 13, 812 P.2d at 377. ¶ 18 Generally the insurance carrier's obligations and the insured's rights are determined by the general declaration of insurance coverage as limited by its provisions. Id. The exclusions are read separately and operate independently against the general declaration. Id. Each exclusion operates to eliminate coverage by identifying events not covered by the policy. Id. ¶ 19 Applying these rules of law, the language of the policy clearly was clear that in-flight damage to the aircraft was excluded and that the approved pilot exclusionary provision applied to liability coverage and to damage to the aircraft other than in-flight only. There is no ambiguity created by either the in-flight aircraft damage exclusion or the approved pilot provision standing alone. The in-flight exclusion removes from coverage any damage to the aircraft while in-flight as defined in the policy. The approved pilot provision further removes coverage for liability or damage to the aircraft while it is being operated by a person other than an approved pilot as enumerated in the policy. The approved pilot provision cannot be read to have added to the coverage as provided in the general declarations but only to limit the coverage. For this Court to construe the approved pilot exclusion as providing coverage for in-flight damage to the aircraft would require an impermissible rewriting of the policy. See 1991 OK 24, ¶ 17, 812 P.2d at 378. The policy clearly excludes from coverage in-flight damage to the aircraft.