policy contained these conflicting provisions, it is ambiguous. Accordingly, we construe this ambiguity against [the insurer] and in favor of Plaintiffs, and we conclude that the policy provided Plaintiffs coverage for damages caused by the overflow of raw sewage into their home.” Id. Similarly, the policy in this case contains contradictory provisions, one of which would reasonably be understood to extend coverage to losses caused by sickness, while two other provisions would reasonably be understood to exclude such coverage. Because reasonable persons could differ as to how to reconcile these contradictory provisions, the policy is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction and is therefore ambiguous. See id.; see also Haworth v. Jantzen, 172 P.3d 193, 196-97 (Okla. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Under longstanding Oklahoma law, “in the
holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did holding that a summons directed to the commissioner of motor vehicles was defective process as against a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of operation of a motor vehicle in this state holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured holding that insurance provisions excluding damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles subject to registration and damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles if the injury or damage occurs away from the insured premises were ambiguous because together they could be read in four different ways holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations