(Emphasis added.) The circuit court interpreted these terms as independent of each other, citing as support Wilson v. Independence Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 314 Ky. 624, 627, 236 S.W.2d 881, 882 (1951) :In the clause in question, due to the use of the period between the two sentences, the Court finds each sentence stands alone and neither modifies the other.

But as was stated by this court in General Accident Fire Assurance Corp. v. Louisville Home Telephone Co., 175 Ky. 96, 193 S.W. 1031, 1033, L.R.A. 1917D, 952, "In the construction of all contracts the endeavor of the courts is to give the contract under investigation such a construction as will comport with the reasonable intent of the parties in making the contract, although this construction may not conform to strict rules of grammar or punctuation." It is also the rule that where an insurance contract is ambiguous or susceptible of different meanings, it will be construed most strongly against the insurer who prepared it. Wilson v. Independence Life Accident Ins. Co., 314 Ky. 624, 236 S.W.2d 881; Koch v. Ocean Accident Guaranty Corp., 313 Ky. 220, 230 S.W.2d 893. We do not consider the clause in question to be ambiguous. There is printed on the face of the policy and across the body of the contract itself, these words, "This policy is limited to automobile accidents — Read it carefully."