insurance law. Further, the Court believes it is more likely that Travelers and Martin County Coal stand for the perfectly reasonable proposition that, before an insurer is held liable for indemnity, the insured must show that claim settled was within a valid policy’s coverage. Such a rule prevents insureds from converting every breach of the duty to defend into liability for subsequent settlements. And in cases where actual legal liability was required by the insurance contract, the actual-legal-liability test will be a natural part of making this determination. Yet this rule also prevents an .insurer rent interpretations by reasonable minds, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the insured. Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381, 385 (Ky.Ct.App.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Wolford v. Wolford, 662 S.W.2d 835,
holding that a contract is ambiguous if a reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or inconsistent interpretations holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured holding that an exclusionary clause in an insurance contract that lends itself to different interpretations is ambiguous and must be construed in a manner most favorably to the insured holding that contract language is ambiguous where it is in fact reasonably or fairly susceptible to the different constructions being advocated by the parties