Unger v. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. of Hammond

I am aware of and approve the general rale that a court in interpreting a policy of insurance prepared by the insurer should resolve any ambiguities therein in favor of the insured. The writer has applied that rule liberally for the benefit of the insured in a number of opinions he has written. For example, see Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 146 Ohio St., 39, 63 N. E. (2d), 909; Kitt v. Home Indemnity Co., 153 Ohio St., 505, 92 N. E. (2d), 685; and American Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Michota, 156 Ohio St., 578, 103 N. E. (2d), 817, 35 A. L. R. (2d), 448.

Nevertheless, a policy of insurance is…