Opinion ID: 1748325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: relative defined

Text: The court must now determine the meaning of the term relative as employed in the contract of insurance. On page one of the policy, it states that the subsequent definitions given to words apply as used throughout this policy and shown in bold type. This could be read two ways: either the terms so used retain their given definitions anywhere they are used in the policy; or the words retain such definitions only if they appear in the policy and also are printed in bold type. This created an ambiguity. It is thoroughly settled law in Mississippi that an ambiguity in an insurance policy is to be strictly construed against the drafter, because the drafter is the party in a position to correct the ambiguity: It must be borne in mind that the policy in question was prepared by the appellant and we are at once confronted with the principle of law that where a policy of insurance is prepared by the insurance company its terms must be considered most favorably toward the insured and especially that provisions of doubtful meaning must be construed most strongly toward liability. In the case of Interstate Life and Accident Company v. Waters, 213 Miss. 265, 272, 56 So.2d 493 [1952], we quoted with approval from Southern Home Insurance Company v. Wall, 156 Miss. 865, 127 So. 298, 299 [1930] as follows: In construing the provisions of a contract of insurance, all the provisions of the policy must be so construed, if it can be reasonably done, so as to give effect to each. Where the policy is subject to two interpretations, equally reasonable, that which gives the greater indemnity to the insured will prevail ... In all cases the policy must be liberally construed in favor of the insured, in order to accomplish the purpose of the insurance. In the case of New York Life Insurance Company v. Nessossis, 189 Miss. 414, 426, 196 So. 766 [1940], we quoted with approval from Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Craft, 186 Miss. 234, 185 So. 225 [1939] as follows: As respects a feature wherein there is no practical difficulty in making the language plain and free from doubt, we are in accord with the remark found in Turner v. Fidelity, etc., Company, 112 Mich. 425, 70 N.W. 898, 38 L.R.A. 529, 67 Am.St.Rep. 428, that () a policy or certificate of insurance `should be framed with such deliberate care that no form of expression by which, on the one hand, the party assured can be caught, or by which, on the other, the company can be cheated, should be found on the face of it' and the only effective way to foster that result is to construe any doubtful provision against the company .. . which prepared and put forth the policy.  Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Broadus, 237 Miss. 387, 392-93, 115 So.2d 130, 74 A.L.R.2d 1248 (1959) (emphasis added). As in Broadus, the court today is faced with a situation where no reason appears on the face of the document why the term `relative' could not have been so emboldened. The reasoning in Broadus is that if courts penalize sloppy draftsmanship, sloppy draftsmen would have an incentive to clean up the language of the documents they draft. Insurance companies would have an incentive to make their insurance contracts clear and free of ambiguities. Today's majority goes entirely in the opposite direction, first professing the belief that an insurer offering coverage broader than statutorily mandated minimums should do so through language of modest clarity, and then offering an inconsistent rule. It remains unclear how the removal of a penalty against sloppy draftsmanship would bring about an improvement in the drafting of insurance contracts. (S)ince these policies are usually prepared by the insurer, the construction is to be made most strongly against the insurer in favor of the assured. Boyd v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 75 Miss. 47, 21 So. 708 (1897). It is a familiar rule of construction of contracts, and especially insurance contracts, that they are construed most strongly against the party drafting the contract, and most favorably to the policyholder. Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Blaylock, 163 Miss. 567, 573, 143 So. 406, 87 A.L.R. 679 (1932).