DISSENTING OPINION OF
PADGETT, J.,WITH WHOM LUM, C.J., JOINS
We respectfully dissent.
The majority today, in a case where cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the appellee’s motion granted, orders a remand for entry of judgment in favor of the appellant insurance company.
The majority begins with the flat assertion that the facts in this case are undisputed. That is simply not so, as is demonstrated below in the extended discussion of the facts in the record.
The appellee, in arguing in support of the judgment below, conceded in her brief here that the decedent became a permanent full-time employee of HPC on or about August 24, 1987, and made the same concession, for the same purpose, in the court below.
Why appellee’s counsel’s concession that Mrs. Harting was a “part-time” employee is conclusive to the majority, while the concession of the appellant insurance company’s counsel at oral argument that she was full-time in the preceding semester is of no significance to the majority, is a little difficult to comprehend in the context of a summary judgment proceeding.
The majority refers to our construction of appellant’s counsel’s admission at oral argument as a “misinterpretation,” but the letters of employment show that Mrs. Harting had been carrying a full load of academic teaching hours for several semesters prior to *545August 1987, so our construction, and counsel’s admission, is in accord with the facts. The majority’s opinion expressly weighs these admissions, as it does the evidence in the record. That is exactly what should not be done on summary judgment.
It is, in our view, the appellate court’s responsibility to examine the documents in the record below, which were called to the judge’s attention, to determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether Mrs. Halting qualified for coverage at the time of her death. It is not our function, on this appeal, to weigh the evidence as the majority does.
We think that the authorities amply support our view that we should not abdicate our responsibility to examine the facts in the record including the employment contracts, simply because of concessions that counsel may have made for the purposes of arguing their legal theory that Mrs. Harting was covered even if she was a part-time employee. That is not to say that those concessions cannot, and should not, be taken into consideration in deciding the factual issue when the litigation has reached the stage where factual issues are supposed to be determined. It is to say that if there is a factual issue in the record, that issue should, for purposes of summary judgment, remain such, and not now be decided by weighing the evidence, concession in argument, or not.
The majority, quoting from a ninth circuit case, Lloyd v. Franklin Life Insurance Co., 245 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1957), makes counsel’s concession, in appellant’s brief and below, a principal basis for its claim that the facts are undisputed.
However, before the dictum quoted from Lloyd in the majority’s opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had this to say:
After judgment was rendered for the Company, however, she made a motion to vacate judgment on the ground that there were material questions of fact unresolved. If this *546Court on appeal had found that proposition true, the cause must have been reversed, irrespective of the fact that each of the contesting parties respectively filed a motion for summary judgment. The able judge of the trial court, however, found expressly that there remained on the record no “issue as to any material fact.” The record so shows. We affirm this holding.
245 F.2d at 897.
And after the dictum alluding to the concession that had been made, in the language which the majority quotes, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, unlike the majority here, meticulously went through the record to demonstrate that, on the documents in the record, there was no genuine issue of disputed material fact, and that the judgment which had been rendered below should be affirmed as a matter of law. The reason for this is found in the sentence in the opinion immediately following the majority’s quote. That sentence reads: “The facts should be established first, and the law can only be laid down in light thereof.” Id.
In reviewing the law on cross-motions for summary judgment under the identical federal rule, the following is stated in 10A C. Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2720, at 16-19 (2d ed. 1983):
However, the fact that both parties simultaneously are arguing that there is no genuine issue of fact does not establish that a trial is unnecessary thereby empowering the court to enter judgment as it sees fit. As was explained by the Third Circuit in Rains v. Cascade Industries, Inc.:
Cross-motions are no more than a claim by each side that it alone is entitled to summary judgment, and the making of such inherently contradictory claims does not constitute an *547agreement that if one is rejected the other is necessarily justified or that the losing party waives judicial consideration and determination whether genuine issues of material fact exist. If any such issue exists it must be disposed of by a plenary trial and not on summary judgment.
In short, the mere fact that both parties seek summary judgment does not constitute a waiver of a full trial or the right to have the case presented to a jury.
There are basically three reasons why cross-motions under Rule 56 do not necessarily indicate that the case is ripe for final resolution and the entry of judgment. First, the determination whether a genuine issue concerning a material fact exists is itself a question of law that must be decided by the court. It does not depend upon what either or both of the parties may have thought about the matter.1
(Footnotes omitted.)
In view of the majority opinion, some reiteration of the basic rules, applying when summary judgments are granted, appears necessary.
As we said in Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger, 57 Haw. 113, 118-19, 551 P.2d 163, 168 (1976):
On review of a summary judgment proceeding, the standard to be applied by this court is identical to that *548employed by the trial court. . . . This means that “. . . the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts alleged in the materials (such as depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits) considered by the court in making its determination must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Gum v. Nakamura, 57 Haw. 39, 549 P.2d 471 (1976); Aku v. Lewis, 52 Haw. 366, 477 P.2d 162 (1970); Abraham v. Onorato Garages, 50 Haw. 628, 446 P.2d 821 (1968). Further, in considering the validity of the granting of summary judgment under H.R.C.P. Rule 56(c), the appellate court must determine whether any genuine issue as to a material fact was raised and, if not raised, whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . .
See also Gealon v. Keala, 60 Haw. 513, 591 P.2d 621 (1979); Hunt v. Chang, 60 Haw. 608, 594 P.2d 118 (1979).
The majority opinion places much reliance for its “finding” that Mrs. Halting was not a full-time employee until August 24, 1987, on the affidavit of one Donald S. Gedeon, Vice President of HPC, which it says is “unchallenged.” The fact is, however, that Mrs. Harting’s employment by HPC, beginning in the spring of 1985, was fixed by a series of letter contracts between her and HPC.
HRCP 56(e) provides:
Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.
*549This court stated in Cahill v. Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp., 56 Haw. 522, 539, 543 P.2d 1356, 1367 (1975):
Rule 56(e), H.R.C.P., requires that affidavits in support of or opposing a motion for summary judgment “shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matter stated therein.” To the extent that the affidavits did not comply with this rule they should be disregarded. ...
Again, in First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392, 396-97, 772 P.2d 1187, 1190 (1989), we stated in footnote 2:
HRCP 56(e) provides in part that
[supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.
Thus, an affidavit consisting of inadmissible hearsay cannot serve as a basis for awarding or denying summary judgment. Rodriguez v. Nishiki, 65 Haw. 430, 434 n.3, 653 P.2d 1145, 1148 n.3 (1982); see also Cahill v. Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp., 56 Haw. 522, 539, 543 P.2d 1356, 1367 (1975) (“To the extent that the affidavits [do] not comply with [HRCP 56(e)] they should be disregarded.”).
Mr. Gedeon’s affidavit, insofar as it purports to vary the terms of the written contracts of employment between Mrs. Harting and HPC, violates HRE 1002, which provides:
To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is *550required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.
Mr. Gedeon’s affidavit falls within none of the exceptions set forth in HRE 1003, 1004 and 1007.
In the analysis of HRE 1002, contained in A. Bowman, Hawaii Rules of Evidence Manual § 1002-2, at 396 (The Michie Co. 1990), it is stated:
“The modem justification for the [original document] rule has expanded from prevention of fraud to a recognition that writings occupy a central position in the law,” observed the court in Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 826 (1987) (discussed in the preceding section). Testimony about the contents of a writing has a greater potential for error than does testimony about events and situations. “[T]he importance of the precise terms of writings in the world of legal relations, the fallibility of the human memory as reliable evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete duplication are the concerns addressed by the [original document] rule.”
As previously pointed out, we have repeatedly held that this court, at this stage of the proceeding, stands in the same position of the trial court, and must examine the record to see if it is undisputed, as the majority says, that
Mrs. Harting was employed... on a part-time temporary basis, beginning the spring semester of 1985. She became a full-time employee on August 24, 1987....
In deciding whether there is a dispute on those vital points, we should look not only at the questionably admissible affidavit of Mr. Gedeon, and at the statements of counsel at oral argument, in the briefs, and in the memoranda below, but primarily at the con*551tracts of employment between Mrs. Halting and HPC, as well as the appellant’s form dated August 18, 1987.
The employment contracts in the record show that Mrs. Halting, by a letter agreement, dated October 25, 1984 and signed by the decedent on November 9,1984, was employed as a “temporary instructor” of English for the Spring 1985 semester to do twelve semester hours of classes and twenty hours per week of registration and preregistration services. Identical agreements were entered into before the commencement of the Fall semester for 1985, the Spring semester for 1986, the Fall semester for 1986, and the Spring semester for 1987. Then, on February 10, 1987, Hawaii Pacific College wrote a letter to the decedent appointing her as an “instructor” of English for the 1987-1988 school year to do twenty-four semester hours of classes with the salary of $12,880 for the twelve-month period.
Aside from the first paragraph which fixed the salary, the semester hours, and the title, the letter was identical with the previous letters. The decedent executed that letter on February 18, 1987, for an academic year to start August 24, 1987.2
The difference between the four semester contracts previously entered into, and the year contract for 1987-1988, are as follows:
1. The first four agreements were for one semester only, the last one was for a full academic year, i.e., two semesters.
2. In the four semester agreements the decedent is referred to as a “temporary” instmctor, in the one-year agreement the word “temporary” does not appear.
3. The first four agreements are for twelve semester hours, the last one is for twenty-four semester hours. That, however, is *552apparently explicable by the fact that it covered two, rather than one, semesters.
4. The compensation was somewhat more than doubled.
In addition to the contracts, there is, in the record, the appellant’s form, apparently turned in by the decedent on August 18, 1987. It contains under “Employed Full-Time” an entry, which appears to be “January 1979,”3 apparently crossed-out, and the date “10-1-87,” apparently written in by an unknown hand. There is no explanation in the record for this somewhat anomalous entry, and no explanation could be given as to it on oral argument.
We note that under the agreement Mrs. Harting was to render services during the “registration and preregistration period” but the record is silent as to when those periods commenced so that they might have commenced prior to August 2, 1987.
After a claim for coverage had been filed, New England Mutual returned the life insurance premium for Mrs. Harting to Hawaii Pacific College.
On this record, in order to grant a summary judgment to the appellant insurance company, the majority, rather than making findings of fact, should have determined whether: (1) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mrs. Harting was working only “part-time” up until less than three months prior to November 2, 1987; and (2) there was a genuine issue of material fact that Mrs. Harting was not a “permanent” employee until less than three months prior to November 2, 1987.
It is obvious from the five contracts in the record that Mrs. Harting, whether she was a “temporary instructor” or merely an “instructor” at the time, carried a full academic load of teaching hours for the semesters involved, and put in up to twenty hours *553per week during the registration and preregistration period each semester, just as any other instructor apparently did. It is also obvious from the record that there are gaps between semesters when the “instructors,” including “temporary” instructors, at Hawaii Pacific College are not teaching.
It is equally obvious. from the record that Mrs. Harting, whether she was employed for a semester, or for an academic school year consisting of two semesters, was employed on contracts for a fixed period of time. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Mrs. Harting, by receiving a year’s contract, received tenure, and so legally, as far as the record goes, Hawaii Pacific College was not obliged to offer her a new contract for the ensuing year. We have been unwilling to hold that employment contracts for a fixed term, or indefinite employment contracts, can be terminated only for good cause. Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. 370, 652 P.2d 625 (1982); see also Kinoshita v. Canadian Pac. Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 600, 724 P.2d 110, 115 (1986). Thus, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Mrs. Harting ever became, legally, a permanent employee, in the sense that tenured professors at academic institutions, and civil servants, are permanent employees. Moreover, we note that the word “instructor” in the 1987-1988 yearly contract is not preceded by the word “permanent.”
The record, therefore, contains evidence which would support afinding: (1) that beginning with the Spring semester of 1985 Mrs. Harting as a teacher, was carrying a full academic load at Hawaii Pacific College, and rendering in full the other services required of teachers; (2) that her services, like those of other teachers, were interrupted by semester breaks; (3) that she executed the contract for the 1987-1988 year in February of 1987, and so during the Spring semester of 1987, while she was carrying a full academic load as a temporary instructor, she had already been hired for the *554ensuing year as an instructor; and (4) that under that contract she was to begin rendering services, like any other teacher, of up to twenty hours per week during the registration and preregistration period, which period is not defined in the record, and thus may have commenced prior to August 2, 1987.
Thus in our view there were genuine issues of material fact in this case. There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mrs. Harting was employed on a “full-time” basis for three months prior to November 2,1987. There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mrs. Harting was employed upon a “permanent” basis prior to August 2,1987 in view of the execution of the 1987-1988 academic year contract in February of 1987.
The majority, following a Texas case, Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Brevell, 291 S.W.2d 957 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956) (which dealt with an employee who did not work full-time, as the stipulation of facts in that case shows, 291 S.W.2d at 958, and is thus not apposite here), finds that Mrs. Harting must have completed three months of service from the date when the 1987-1988 academic year commenced in order to be covered under the policy.
The majority, having found no genuine issue of material fact by the simple expedient of ignoring the terms of the written contracts of employment, and their terms, goes on to hold that the insurance contract in question was clear and unambiguous.
The pertinent provisions of the insurance contract were as follows:
Subject to the section of this Policy entitled “Eligibility for Coverages”, each employee to be insured under any part of the employee insurance provided hereunder shall be eligible upon completion of the waiting period shown below:
* * *
*555(2) persons who become employees after the effective date of the Policy, upon completion of three months of continuous active service.
“Employee” is defined in the policy as:
[a]ny person employed and compensated for services by the Policyholder ... on a regular full-time permanent basis.
Thus there are two requisites for the decedent to have qualified for coverage under the policy: she must have been (1) an “employee” as defined in the policy, and (2) must have completed three months of continuous active service. The term “continuous active service,” however, is not defined in the policy.
There is no dispute but that the decedent, Mrs. Harting, had for much more than three months before November 2,1987, been rendering “active service” to the employer Hawaii Pacific College. There may be a question of whether that service was “continuous.” We note that the words “regular,” “permanent,” and “full-time,” are adjectives used in the policy to qualify the word “basis” in the definition of “employee.” They are not adjectives used to qualify the words “active service” in the waiting period provision, although obviously they could easily have been put in by the insurer appellant in drafting the contract. Thus there is on the face of the policy a grammatical ambiguity as to the meaning of the word “continuous,” the critical word in issue here.
The waiting period provision does not say, as the majority concludes, that
“each [person employed and compensated for services by the Policyholder ... on a regular full-time permanent basis]... shall be eligible ... upon completion of three months of continuous active service.”4
*556The majority, to buttress its alteration of the policy language states: “HRS § 431:10-237 requires that the stated definition of employee be used wherever that term appears in the policy.” HRS § 431:10-237 provides:
Construction of policies. Every insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy, and as amplified, extended, restricted, or modified by any rider, endorsement or application attached to and made a part of the policy.
Thus the statute does not state what the majority claims it states with respect to the term “employee,” and that statute certainly does not make what is an ambiguous policy provision unambiguous or make the majority’s strained reading of the policy language indisputable.
In our view, the language of the policy is ambiguous as we have pointed out, and the facts in the record are also ambiguous as we have pointed out.
When insurance contracts are to be construed, the law of Hawaii, until today, has been clear. We have said “ambiguity in an insurance policy will be construed in favor of the insured.” Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Franklin, 66 Haw. 384, 385, 662 P.2d 1117, 1118 (1983). Again, we said:
Ambiguity in an exception clause is construed in favor of the insured. The burden is upon the insurer to provide unequivocal language to bring itself clearly within the exclusion. An exclusion clause will be strictly construed against the insurer.
Retherford v. Kama, 52 Haw. 91, 470 P.2d 517 (1970). On another occasion we stated:
The objectively reasonable expectations of policyholders and intended beneficiaries regarding the terms *557of insurance contracts will be honored even though painstaking study of the policy provisions would have negated those expectations.
Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co. v. Brooks, 67 Haw. 285, 285, 686 P.2d 23, 24 (1984).
This approach is required because the typical insurance policy is purchased by persons:
utterly unacquainted with the niceties of life insurance. ... It is the understanding of such persons that counts. . . . [T]he ordinary applicant who has paid his first premium and has successfully passed his physical examination, would not by the remotest chance understand the clause [in this case] as leaving him uncovered until the insurer at its leisure approved the risk; he would assume that he was getting immediate coverage for his money____A man must indeed read what he signs, and he is charged, if he does not; but insurers who seek to impose upon words of common speech an esoteric significance intelligible only to their craft, must bear the burden of any resulting confusion.
(Citation omitted).
The insurer must be held responsible for achieving certainty and clarity in the field of insurance.
Law v. Hawaiian Life Ins. Co., 51 Haw. 288, 292, 459 P.2d 195, 198 (1969).
All this time honored law the majority today sidesteps by pronouncing the policy language clear and unambiguous, and by finding, despite the employment letters, that Mrs. Halting was only a “part-time” employee who had not rendered three months of *558“continuous” active service io her employer prior to her death on November 2, 1987.
If on trial it develops that Mrs. Harting was in fact only employed part-time prior to the commencement of her rendering services under the final contract, and if the date of that commencement was later than August 2,1987, then we might well agree that she had not rendered continuous active service for three months prior to her death. But on this record those facts are in doubt.
By the general rules of construction the use of the word “full-time,” in the definition of employee, must be taken in its ordinary common sense, and if Mrs. Harting was in fact carrying a full academic load in the previous semester, then we do not see how she can be classified as a “part-time” employee.
As to the word “regular,” at the time of her death, Mrs. Harting, according to the contracts, was in the sixth semester of carrying a full-time academic load. This would seem to make her a “regular” employee in the ordinary sense of the word.
As to the word “permanent,” if it is used in its ordinary regular sense, Mrs. Harting was not a permanent employee, since she was employed at the time of her death only on a year’s contract in which she was only designated as an “instructor” not as a “permanent instructor.” The fact that the previous four semester contracts contain the word “temporary” as an adjective qualifying the word “instructor” raises an issue, but does not conclusively establish when she became employed on a “permanent” basis. If having a yearly contract made her “permanent,” as seems to be the assumption, then that contract was entered into in February of 1987, well before August 2, 1987.
Finally, even if the majority were right in concluding that it was clear and unambiguous that Mrs. Harting was a part-time employee until she became employed under the yearly contract, and that service must have been rendered for three months under *559that contract prior to November 2,1987, there remains the question of when the registration and preregistration periods, during which she was to render services under that contract, commenced.
The problem with this case is not that the majority is reversing a summary judgment granted below. With that, we are in complete agreement. Moreover, there is no doubt that this court can enter a summary judgment in favor of an appealing appellant where cross-motions for summary judgment had been made below and the appellee’s motion granted, where there is, in the record, no genuine issue of material fact. Flint v. MacKenzie, 53 Haw. 672, 501 P.2d 357 (1972).
In this case, however, while the parties may have argued the case on the basis of “full-time” versus “part-time,” the oral argument and the record make clear that there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether Mrs. Halting had served her employer “full-time” for three months before her death.
Since the record below contains some conflicting records with respect to Mrs. Harting’s employment, we would overrule the appellant insurance company’s quibble over standing, which the majority says it does not need to deal with, and remand the case for a determination of whether Mrs. Harting was rendering continuous active service to her employer on or before August 2, 1987. This case, on this record, is simply not an appropriate one for a summary judgment for either party.
It is interesting to note that among the cases cited in support of that proposition, in the text referred to, is the case of Brawner v. Pearl Assurance Co., 267 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1958), an opinion written by the same Judge Fee who wrote the opinion in Lloyd and who after stating: “In contrast, by definition, a summary judgment cannot be granted if there be a disputed question of material fact. This determination does not depend upon what either or both parties may have thought about the matter!,]” (267 F.2d at 46), cites other opinions in support thereof in a footnote and then adds “[s]ee Lloyd v. Franklin Insurance Company, 9 Cir., 245 F.2d 896.”
There are two forms in the record indicating a part-time arrangement with respect to two courses in the fall of 1986. There is no explanation in the record of why these agreements were entered into in light of the pre-existing arrangement for that semester.
The use of “Employed Full-Time” is some evidence that “continuous means “full-time.”
Even if the policy used those words, there would still be an ambiguity as to the meaning of “continuous active service.”