Valley Furniture & Interiors, Inc., bought an insurance policy from Transportation Insurance Co. (TIC).The policy provided coverage of $50,000 for each occurrence of property loss caused by employee dishonesty. An “occurrence” was defined as “a single act or series of related acts.” Valley allowed its employees to take pay advances and to buy discounted merchandise, with the advances and the cost of the merchandise deducted from their paychecks. The payroll manager was to notify the payroll company to make the deductions. Over a period of six years, without notifying the payroll company, the payroll manager issued advances to other employees and herself and bought merchandise for herself, in amounts totaling more than $200,000.Valley filed claims with TIC for three “occurrences” of employee theft. TIC considered the acts a “series of related acts” and paid only $50,000. Valley filed a suit in a Washington state court against TIC, alleging, in part, breach of contract. What is the standard for interpreting an insurance clause? How should this court define “series of related acts”? Why?