a critical rule is that which stops a court from rewriting the contract when the intent of the parties is evident. Thus, if the language of the policy’s provisions is clear and unambiguous, a court may not “resort to construction of that language.” Karabin v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Ohio St.3d 163, 167, 462 N.E.2d 403 (1984). How- • ever, in cases where the wording of an insurance contract or policy is doubtful or ambiguous, the contract is construed in a manner most favorable to the insured. Burdett, 419 F.2d at 248. Ambiguity is said to exist “only where a term cannot be determined from the four corners of the agreement or where contract language is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations.”’ Potti v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 938 F.2d 641, 647 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) (citing Bahamas Agr. Indus. Ltd. v. Riley
holding that indiana courts will only engage in statutory interpretation if the language of the statute is ambiguous holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous holding that when relevant contract language is ambiguous interpretation is turned over to the factfinder holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous holding that rules of contract construction are to be applied where the language used is ambiguous