Extract to table

The motion argues that the undisputed evidence establishes that the $15 million named-windstorm sub-limit was deleted at the July 2022 renewal, or alternatively, that the policy is at minimum ambiguous on this point and must be construed in VHG's favor under the doctrine of contra proferentem

Where, as here, the policy is ambiguous regarding whether a sub-limit applies, and the extrinsic evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the parties intended to delete the sub-limit, the ambiguity must be resolved in VHG's favor under the doctrine of contra proferentem