insurer’s liability is governed by the contract entered into.” American Fam. Mut. Ins. v. Ryan, 330 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Minn.1983). Because the construction of an insurance policy is the process of determining the legal effect of the policy’s terms, and interpretation is the process of ascertaining the meaning of the words used, both construction and interpretation are ordinarily questions of law. See A.Y. McDonald Indus. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 475 N.W.2d 607, 618 (Iowa 1991) (construction and interpretation are questions of law unless extrinsic evidence is relied upon). Therefore, this court is not bound by and need not give deference to the trial court’s construction and interpretation. See Frost-Benco Elec. Ass’n v. Minnesota Public Utils. Comm’n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn.1984) (<HOLDING>). The insurance policy at issue in this case
holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency