Hacker v. Dickman

In this case we consider the argument that a clause in an insurance policy which employs the pronoun “you” may have different meanings, depending on the perspective and circumstances of the particular “covered person” reading it. We reject such a proposition in favor of according to pronouns in a contract applicable to more than one person a uniform meaning consistent with policy definitions.

It is well-settled law in Ohio that “[w]here provisions of a contract of insurance are reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, they will be construed strictly against the insurer and…