Under proper interpretation of policy language, suicide clause not re-activated by lapse and reinstatement of policy.
Because suicide clause subject to two interpretations, it is ambiguous.
Defendants have adopted plaintiff’s construction of contract (last sentence dealing with reinstatement deals only with repayment of premium).
Policy and reinstatement notice, read together, create ambiguous policy language.
Ambiguous policy language must be construed against defendants.
Court should apply reasonable expectation doctrine.
Absent adopting defendants’ interpretation of suicide clause, two-year suicide time does not reset with reinstatement.
Reinstated policy’s suicide provision ran from date of issuance of original policy.
Alternatively, original policy and reinstated policy different enough to trigger new policy based on reinstatement language.
“Mend the hold” doctrine precludes Golden Rule from arguing different basis for denial of plaintiff’s claim than it raised in denial letter.
Genuine dispute exists as to whether deceased made material misrepresentations in application for reinstatement of policy.