is inapplicable because Zurich failed to establish the policy language granting it discretion when investigating and paying claims extended to those within the deductible. As Methodist asserts, the policy provision granting Zurich the “right to investigate and settle these claims, proceedings or suits” referred to “any claim, proceeding or suit against [Methodist] for' benefits payable by this insurance.” (emphasis added). ' Methodist argues (1) the emphasized language demonstrated Zurich had the right to settle only claims for which it was ultimately responsible or (2) based on existence of the deductible, there was a latent ambiguity on whether Zurich had the right to settle all claims or only those for which it was ultimately responsible. See CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d at 520 (<HOLDING>). We disagree with both contentions. Because
recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear holding that where latent ambiguity exists regarding identity of real property described in a will question as to what testatrix intended to devise is a mixed question of law and fact recognizing latent ambiguity arises when contract unambiguous on its face is applied to subject matter with which it deals and ambiguity appears by reason of some collateral matter recognizing that a federal court is obliged to dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction holding that where an ambiguity exists in fact or by construction it is proper to consider the history of the legislation