nullifying a bargained-for contract provision,, namely coverage for potential legal liability, by means of a prior breach of its duty to defend. 2. Application In Kentucky, the interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law for the Court to decide. Kemper Nat’l Ins. Cos. v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc., 82 S.W.3d 869, 871 (Ky.2002); see also Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co., Inc. v. Houston Cas. Co., 835 F.Supp.2d 329, 332 (W.D.Ky.2011). Unless there is an ambiguity, “a written' instrument will be enforcéd strictly according to its terms, and a court will interpret a contract’s terms by assigning language its ordinary meaning and without resort to extrinsic evidence.” Frear, 103 S.W.3d at 106; see also York v. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 156 S.W.3d 291, 293 (Ky.2005) (<HOLDING>). If, however, a contract is susceptible to
holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning