In Heitsman V

In Heitsman v. Canadian Premier Life Insurance Co., an insurance company denied coverage on the basis of an ambiguous exclusion of liability clause. What did the Court find?

A) The contra proferentum rule was applied, and the exclusion was narrowly interpreted.
B) The contra proferentum rule was applied, so the interpretation favoured the insurance company.
C) The contra proferentum rule did not apply, because the insurance contract was in standard form.
D) The contra proferentum rule was applied, and the exclusion was broadly construed.
E) The contra proferentum rule did not apply, because the insured had signed the contract voluntarily.