Mont. 448], 597 P.2d 720 (1979); Conner v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 496 P.2d 770 (Okl.1972); McDonald Industries, Inc. v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 26 Wash.App. 376, 613 P.2d 800 (1980). See also Bonner County v. Panhandle Rodeo Ass’n. Inc., 101 Idaho 772, 620 P.2d 1102 (1980); Farmers Ins. Group v. Sessions, 100 Idaho 914, 607 P.2d 422 (1980). Hence, the courts have held that the burden is on the insurer to use clear and precise language if it wishes to restrict the scope of its coverage. Goforth v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 202 Kan. 413, 449 P.2d 477 (1969); Anderson v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 6 Kan.App.2d 163, 627 P.2d 344 (1981); Harvey’s Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. MacSween, 96 Nev. 215, 606 P.2d 1095 (1980); ... [See also ] Farmers Ins. Group v. Sessions, 100 Idaho 914, 607 P.2d 422 (1980) (<HOLDING>). (Emphasis added.) Accord, Cooling [v. U.S.F.
holding that an exclusionary clause in an insurance contract that lends itself to different interpretations is ambiguous and must be construed in a manner most favorably to the insured holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists holding that a contract is ambiguous if a reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or inconsistent interpretations 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 ambiguities in insurance contracts should be favorably construed to the insured