“Courts universally hold that policies of insurance, which are in language selected by the insurer and which are reasonably open to different interpretation, will be construed most favorably to the insured.”
How later courts described this case
- “Courts universally hold that policies of insurance, which are in language selected by the insurer and which are reasonably open to different interpretation, will be construed most favorably to the insured.”
- “Nothing but a clear and unambiguous expression in an exception clause, amounting to a necessity for it, will justify a court in holding it utterly inconsistent with the preceding general coverage clauses.”
- “With such broad coverage under the policy, limited only by specific exceptions, was it within the contemplation of the parties to exclude Moore from such coverage ... ”
- paragraph two of the syllabus
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bell, J.,
concurring. In my judgment, ordinarily the questions of whether an indemnity company is re
*105
quired to defend under the provisions of its indemnity contract and whether a given state of facts comes within the coverage of such contract are not proper subjects to be determined in an action for a declaratory judgment for the reason that under the Ohio statute the indemnity company has the right to have those questions determined by a jury after liability has been established. However, the indemnity company (the insurer), the village of Plymouth (the insured) and the administratrix of the estate of the deceased, all being parties in the instant case, coupled with the fact that all parties herein waived a trial by jury upon those questions and joined in a prayer for a declaratory judgment, all are bound by the present judgment.. Therefore I concur. See
Radaszewski
v.
Keating, Exrx.,
141 Ohio St., 489 , 49 N. E. (2d), 167.
Turnee, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.