In Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., 239 Conn. 708, 716, 687 A.2d 506 (1997) the court specifically stated that coverage of a payment bond by a surety could not fall below the statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court stated that "if there is any ambiguity, it must be interpreted most strongly against the surety." Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., supra, 239 Conn. at 717.