In Hartman v. Ins. Co. of North America, 106 Mich.App. 731, 308 N.W.2d 625 (1981), the insurance carrier for the group home argued it was not liable for the PIP benefits incurred on behalf of the mentally incompetent adult because he was not a "ward" of its named insured. The Court disagreed and held that under the undisputed facts the mentally incompetent adult was a ward of the adult living facility and therefore by definition a resident relative: It is obvious that the term "ward" as used in INA's policy should not be restricted in its definition to include only a person on behalf of whom a legal guardian has been appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Rather, a common and ordinary dictionary definition of "ward", offered by Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1965), p 2575, is "a person . . . under the protection or tutelage of a person." It is therefore necessary to examine the factual context of the case at bar to determine whether William Prince was a "ward" of the Baumgartens as that word is used in common parlance. We hold that under all of the facts and circumstances of this case Prince was a "ward" of the Baumgartens according to the common and ordinary meaning of that term. In accord with this conclusion is the fact that although INA's agent had actual knowledge at the time he sold the insurance policy to the Baumgartens that they were engaged in the business of caring for handicapped people, and although this knowledge is imputable to INA via the existing agency relationship, INA never undertook to clarify the terminology of its policy--including the term "ward"--notwithstanding its potential risk exposure due to the nature of the Baumgartens' business. Any ambiguity in the policy must therefore be strictly construed against INA. Hartman, 106 Mich. App. at 739-740.