Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc.

Summary

The dissent would conclude that the insurance policy is ambiguous because the $10 million aggregate policy limit in endorsement no. 3 can reasonably be read either as an overall policy cap or as an amendment raising the aggregate limits for each coverage part and location. Applying the rule that ambiguities in insurance policies are construed against the drafter, the dissent would affirm the trial court's judgment on different grounds. The dissent agrees with the majority's treatment of the remaining portions of the case.