James v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

[¶5.] The circuit court concluded that State Farm could not subrogate against its own insured. It further held that the reimbursement clause was ambiguous. As a consequence, the court construed the policy against State Farm, the drafter, granting summary judgment to James. State Farm appeals, raising one issue and several sub-issues restated as follows:

1. Whether the language of the reimbursement clause is ambiguous.

2. Whether requiring James to reimburse State Farm implicates the *543anti-subrogation rule or offends public policy.

3. If State Farm is entitled to reimbursement, whether James is…