Interpretation of An Insurance Policy Which Clearly Excludes Coverage
"The rules governing policy interpretation require us to look first to the language of the contract in order to ascertain its plain meaning or the meaning a layperson would ordinarily attach to it . . . the fundamental rules of contract interpretation are based on the premise that the interpretation of a contract must give effect to the 'mutual intention' of the parties. '. . . Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract." (Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 1, 18 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 370, 900 P.2d 619].)
If the policy is ambiguous (i.e., susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation), the ambiguity is construed in favor of coverage.
However, the predicate to interpreting ambiguities in favor of coverage is that the policy be reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.
Where a policy clearly excludes coverage, we will not indulge in tortured construction to divine some theoretical ambiguity in order to find coverage." (Titan Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 457, 469 [27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 476], original italics.)