of an old, defective, or low quality saddle. Defs SMF ¶ 19, Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs Statement of Material Fact ¶ 19 (Docket # 31) (PL’s Opp’n Def.’s SMF). Instead she asserts that Tinkerbell was not “properly saddled” and that her fall was “most likely due to Ms. Balmer’s negligence in failing to properly tighten the girth on the saddle or to perform the necessary checks to make sure that the saddle was properly secure.” Amend. Compl. ¶20; PL’s SAMF ¶49. Urging a more expansive definition of faulty tack and equipment, Samantha cites two decisions in which the definition of faulty tack was extended to include the improper installation or positioning of equipment or tack which is otherwise in sound condition. See Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corporation, 132 N.M. 332, 48 P.3d 70, 78 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Hubner v. Spring Valley Equestrian Center,
holding the terms faulty and faulty condition to be reasonably susceptible to an interpretation extending them to situations in which the fault consists of applying or positioning the equipment or tack in an unsafe manner holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it holding that msp by its terms limits the governments right to reimbursement to situations in which prompt payment has been made or can reasonably be expected by a primary plan  holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured holding that ambiguity exists if the meaning of contractual terms cannot be deciphered from reading the entire instrument or if the terms are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation