Dispute over language in an insurance policy

[omgomg]

I have a damaged outer wall on my town house. I have filed a claim but the claim was denied because the wall is considered a common element by the insurance company, because I was inadvertently sold a condominium policy. However, according to the insurance company's definition of what is covered the wall would be covered under this part of the definition as written , in my policy word for word: "real property owned soley by you pertaining to the residence premises; property for which you have an insurance responsibility under an Association or Corporation of Property Owneers or Teneants Agreement; or Additional Structures soley owned by you which are located at the residence premises."
The damaged front wall is my property, and is not a common element.
There are a couple of legal doctrines which can be appplied in resolving this ambiguity. One would be the Doctrine of Contra Proferentum, the other, The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations. Which one, if either, would be an avenue of pursuit, according to my situation?

 

[disagreeable]

Your recourse is to fix the wall and sue the insurance company. I would try a phone call to your states insurance company first, prior to repairing the wall.

 

[omgomg]

I contacted a public adjuster about a year ago, and I recently filed a complaint with the Ill. Dept. of Insurance. In both cases, they said they were unable to help me, because this policy is a condominium policy, so the wall is a common area to them, and therefore, as far as they are concerned, is not covered. The policy specifically states that is does not cover common elements, but this wall is not a common element. I need some assistance from an attorney who would know how to pursue my complaint of ambiguity, in order that I may explain it to these people, as they seem to know nothing about these doctrines; and I am unable to afford a top notch attorney who would have already had this case settled/closed.