Previous employer: I had to use a week's vacation when my SIL passed (they only covered blood relations and spouses).
I use to work for a company that rewrote it bereavement pay schedule. They used the exact wording of - Coverage is for spouce and blood relatives only. I have to tell you, I had a field day with the HR department and the owner, due to this wording. See I am adopted. The only two blood relatives I have are my DS and DD.
When we had a company meeting to go over the changes to the handbook, they had made several changes (most were so stupid), they opened the floor to questions. So I asked them, that in order to qualify for bereavement pay other than spouce, you had to have a DNA connection. I was told that was correct. At my questions, the light bulb went off in my managers head of exactly where I was going.
I then asked them to tell me what I would get for bereavement pay for my family. The owner said I would get what was stated in the handbook. I told him the handbook doesn't state what I would get. He told me to read it again. So, I did out loud, for eveybody to hear. When I got done, I looked at him and said, it still doesn't tell ME how many days I get, because of the verbage they used. He said that it couldn't get any more clear cut and dry as you will only get paid for spouce and blood relatives. My responce back was - And like I asked, what exactly will I get for my days off. I know I'll get time off for my husband as he is a spouce and kids because they are blood relatives, but what about my ADOPTIVE PARENTS, BROTHERS, and GRANDPARENTS? His responce was, they would count. And before I could say another word, one of the other employees, stood up and said, not according to what YOU and HR stated earlier. YOU BOTH stated, not once, but atleast 3 times, you would only pay for BLOOD RELATIVES. She doesn't have any, other than her kids. If you are going to use the verbage blood relatives in your handbook, then you exclude any one who is adopted. The owner stated that we were reading to much into the verbage of the text. To which someone else pointed out, that HE had stated, after I read it, that it couldn't get any more clear cut and dry as to what they would pay. Needless to say, it got very ugly from there on out as HR and the owner made horsesa$$'s out of themselves with further comments, which lead to a whole other line of questions and defining of wording in the handbook.
But at the end, they had to change the wording in the handbook, they went to blood and/or adoptive parents, siblings and grandparents.