In Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 175 Ariz. 148, 154, 854 P.2d 1134, 1140 (1993) the Arizona Supreme Court adopted a modern version of the parol evidence rule that governs the use of parol evidence offered to interpret the terms of a contract. "The judge first considers the offered evidence and, if he or she finds that the contract language is 'reasonably susceptible' to the interpretation asserted by its proponent, the evidence is admissible to determine the meaning intended by the parties." Id. Taylor adopted the approach to the parol evidence rule advanced by Professor Corbin, and rejected the notion that an abstract finding of ambiguity is necessary before the judge can even examine parol evidence. See generally 3 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts 573 (1960).