1. Why was Cipriano's claim denied by the Insurance Company?

2. What was the ambiguity discussed in the case?

3. How did the court rule and why?

u. E U 1"!\" [VI 11'. H 3' ._,.-..+-.- Facts: Juacikino Ciprianu purchased an insurance pulicv on his house from Patrons Mutual Insurance CumpnY- The policy stated that the eumpcanyr would not pay for any damage to the. residence caused by vandalism or l'Jul'glalr-i.J if the residence was vacant for mere than 3.0 days in a row just before the loss. Furchermme, the company would not pay for damage to pmxa! pmpmy caused by re, light ning, 01' vandalism. After Ciprian's house had been vacant for more: than 50 day's, 'an'QTSOI-lisf.-bum6d itdom; Patrons denied his-claim )n the grounds that arson is var-1153133111, which-his policy did ' ' "' s. The \"1., - nut mw-I i. Iprlum III-a1 --.uu .munst Patron .1: - ' nunr- for summary Judgmen , company led 1-1 m Issues: Does arson mrmt as WWI? M Pa)? GiPria'no, _ ., ,_._ __, Reasoning: Patrons would no; hit\": :9 pay {Kim house was damaged by vandalism'1I-3065 vandali - arso? The policy have: dened this: unpmtant term. \f