free gift or a grant of’); id. at 1942 (defining “reuse” as “to use again”). Therefore these terms could also plausibly be read to carry a similar meaning. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995) (“[A] word is known by the company it keeps.”); Young v. Brighton Sch. Dist. 27J, 325 P.3d 571, 579 (Colo.2014). Thus, the interpretation adopted by the Department’s Guidance Document that electronic devices and components are not waste so long as they can be resold, donated, repaired, refurbished, or reused for their original intended purpose is a second permissible reading of the regulation. Because the regulation here is susceptible to at least two valid interpretations, it is ambiguous. See also People v. Disher, 224 P.3d 254, 256-57 (Colo.2010) (<HOLDING>); People v. Madden, 111 P.3d 452, 458-59
holding that some special relationship between the parties is required to recover under the theory of negligent misrepresentation holding that where a statutes definition of intimate relationship was silent on whether a sexual relationship was required and some of the examples included in the definition implied a sexual relationship but some did not it was ambiguous and the court was required to look beyond its text to resolve that ambiguity holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by the jurys exposure to the dictionary definition of burglary because the definition referenced theft which was not an element the prosecution was required to prove holding there was no abuse of discretion where although the district court did not discuss the relationship that the damages awarded  had to the damages  sought the district courts opinion made clear that it was well aware of this relationship holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school