not appear ambiguous on its face, and if neither party asserts that it contains an ambiguity, then this Court exercises free review over its interpretation,” and applies the plain meaning of the words used. Idaho Counties Risk Mgmt. Prog. Underwriters v. Northland Ins. Cos., 147 Idaho 84, 86, 205 P.3d 1220, 1222 (2009). The generally accepted rule is that express terms in the policy can specifically enable the insurer to abandon an appeal. E.g. Sanchez v. Kirby, 131 N.M. 565, 40 P.3d 1009, 1011-12 (N.M.Ct.App.2001); Schneider v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 Misc.3d 552, 844 N.Y.S.2d 657, 661 (N.Y.Sup. Ct.2007); Truck Ins. Exch. of Farmers Ins. Group v. Century Indem. Co., 76 Wash.App. 527, 887 P.2d 455, 459 (1995); see also Smith v. Zale Indem. Co., 538 So.2d 1142, 1144 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Since ambiguous language is construed in
holding that when an insurer files suit to cancel a policy the entire liability of the insurer both on the policy and under the statute is put in issue holding depends on the policy language at hand holding that express language in the policy permitted the insurer to avoid paying costs on appeal holding that insured could recover the costs of defending a declaratory judgment action brought by the injured party to compel the insurer to defend but could not recover the costs associated with prosecuting crossclaims against the insurer holding that discharge of employee to avoid paying commissions on future transactions did not violate clear mandate of public policy