Opinion ID: 1618299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ambiguous Policy Language Is Construed Against the Insurer

Text: The parties agree that the determinative issue on appeal is whether the Farmers policy is ambiguous. It is black-letter law that: An ambiguity exists when there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the language in the policy. Language is ambiguous if it is reasonably open to different constructions. Seeck, 212 S.W.3d at 132; Martin, 996 S.W.2d at 508; see Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633, 639-640 (Mo.1960). Moreover, [i]n construing the terms of an insurance policy, this Court applies the meaning which would be attached by an ordinary person of average understanding if purchasing insurance, and resolves ambiguities in favor of the insured. Seeck, 212 S.W.3d at 132; Martin, 996 S.W.2d 506, 508 (Mo. banc 1999). This rule, often referred to as the doctrine of contra proferentem, [1] is applied more rigorously in insurance contracts than in other contracts in Missouri. Mansion Hills Condominium Assoc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 62 S.W.3d 633, 637 (Mo.App. 2001). Missouri also strictly construes exclusionary clauses against the drafter, who also bears the burden of showing the exclusion applies. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Haas, 422 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Mo. banc 1968); Crossman v. Yacubovich, 290 S.W.3d 775, 779 (Mo.App.2009); McRaven v. F-Stop Photo Labs, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Mo.App.1983).