Nonetheless, even if the policy language is considered ambiguous or open to doubt, any ambiguity or doubt must be resolved against Metpath and in favor of Birmingham since the drafter of the insurance policy was Metpath's agent, JH, and those provisions requested by Metpath's representatives are the very provisions which limit the coverage to the period of the strike. ( Hodom v. Stearns, 32 A.D.2d 234, 236, app dsmd 25 N.Y.2d 722; 731 West Lake Rd. v Boheen, 58 A.D.2d 1038, 1038-1039; see, also, De Cillis v. E.G. B., Inc., 55 A.D.2d 1031.) In this case, Metpath purchased necessary extra expense insurance for losses it might incur "during the period of a strike or slowdown" by the air traffic controllers.