As we saw in Leahy v. CNS and Buchanan v. Wawanesa, coverage disputes often involve problematic policy wording. Such disputes may trigger the contra proferentum rule against the insurer, who wrote the policy. Of course, for the rule to even apply, the policy wording in question has to be ambiguous. Find and summarize another coverage case that involved an argument over interpretation of the language in an insurance policy. Make sure that your summary answers these questions: 1. What was the specific wording in issue? 2. What were the two different interpretations of the policy language that the insured argued for? 3. Was there an actual ambiguity? Explain why or why not. 4. Did the court apply the rules for interpretation properly? 5. How could the insurer have worded the policy to avoid the problem?