Insurance is a matter of contract, and the language used is to be accorded its general ordinary-meaning, bearing in mind that the contract is to be construed in accordance with the intention and understanding of the parties, and in construing it the court cannot go further than a fair construction of the language used will permit.
North British &c. Ins. Co. v. Tye,
In construing a contract of group insurance we are to apply, additionally, the rule that the master group policy and the certificate of insurance must be construed together, for it takes both to make the contract. “The certificate is not, of itself, a complete contract by the company. It expressly provides that the terms and conditions of the contract are to be regulated by [group] policy number_________________ On its very face, the paper produced shows that it does not contain the whole contract. How can any one say what the contract was from the certificate alone? What is the risk taken?”
Underwriters’ Agency v.
*583
Sutherlin,
The certificate is evidence of coverage under the master policy.
Lancaster v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
Where an insured contended that he had paid for and accepted the certificate of insurance, which declared in general terms that he was insured against loss by fire, but which elsewhere referred to another instrument, presumably a blank form of policy, containing certain limitations of the risk assumed, which policy he never saw and the terms of which he never knew, “To that contention the law makes this answer: The [insured] accepted an instrument which contained a reference to another instrument in which were embodied the limitations, and which were made a part of the contract. [He was] presumed to know the contents of the paper which [he] received, and if [he] had read it [he] would have observed that it referred to and adopted the provisions of the other instrument. [He] had the right to demand an inspection of that instrument, and, if inspection had been refused, to decline to enter into the contract.” Conner v. Manchester Assur. Co., 130 F 743, 745 (9th Cir.) and see
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sewell,
Contracts, including insurance policies, even when ambiguous, are to be construed by the court, and it is only after application of the pertinent rules of construction and the ambiguity remains that a fact question arises to be explained by extrinsic evidence and resolved by a jury.
Davis v. United &c. Life Ins. Co.,
Applying these rules of construction it becomes apparent
*585
at once that there is no ambiguity in the contract. The limit of liability arising upon the death of Mr. Baker was the sum of $5,000 plus a refund of premiums for any insurance in excess of that as represented by certificates issued by the bank. Cf.
Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Carter,
4. No increase in the company’s liability under the contract could be assented to save in writing and signed by its president or secretary, for the policy provides on its face that only these could alter or waive any conditions of the policy or make any agreement binding upon the company.
Hutson v. Prudential Ins. Co.,
The company has discharged its liability under the contract by payment of the $5,000 and refund of premiums on the excess of insurance issued above that amount. It was error to enter summary judgment for the plaintiff; judgment should have been entered for the defendant.
Judgment reversed with direction that judgment be entered for the defendant.