How have courts interpreted section 3.2 and 10.2 of a long-term disability policy?

We apply ordinary rules of contractual interpretation in interpreting insurance contracts and try to give effect to the parties' intentions. Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1264 (1992). We hold the policy unambiguously excludes coverage of preexisting conditions known to the insured which had manifested themselves before the policy issued. The policy clearly states it only covers disabilities due to "Sickness" and defines "Sickness" to exclude conditions manifested before the policy issued. We do not read sections 3.2 and 10.2 as creating uncertainty when read together with the policy's statement of coverage and definition of sickness. The clear language of the policy governs.