198 F.3d 100, 103-04 (3d Cir.1999)). ‘"When a term in an insurance policy is ambiguous ... and the intention of the parties cannot be discerned from the face of the policy, the court, in its attempts to arrive at a reasonable construction of the policy that is in accord with the parties’ apparent intention, may look to extrinsic evidence of the purpose of the insurance, its subject matter, the situation of the parties, and the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract.” Pacific Indemnity Co., 766 F.2d at 761. Ambiguous insurance contracts must be construed strictly against the insurer; ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the insured. Id. Exclusions from coverage of an insurance policy will be effective against an V-041-B-A, 1996 WL 33370669 (N.D.Miss. Jan. 10, 1996) (<HOLDING>). Drumheller does not own the property through
holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding that a pasture leased by the policyholder was not used in connection with the residence premises of the policyholder holding that an unpaved public street a short distance from the policyholders home was not part of the insured premises because it was not used in connection with the residence premises recognizing a landlords duty for injuries sustained on leased premises where the landlord is aware that the premises are leased with intent to admit the public holding under kansas law that a plumber who was injured while inspecting the leased premises in order to prepare an estimate for plumbing work had not entered the premises for the purpose for which they were leased and thus could not rely on the public use exception