The circuit court granted summary disposition to plaintiff on this ground. In that case, a panel of this Court found that for purposes of an exclusionary clause, it is a criminal act to serve alcohol to a minor. That decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on other grounds. The Supreme Court expressly declined to consider the issue before us. Nor do we need to consider this issue to resolve the present matter.
Defendants argue that the exclusions section of the policy is ambiguous.
Most of the policy's other exclusions, which are precisely written, leave no doubt in the mind of the policyholder as to his level of protection. See Taylor , supra at 649. Because ambiguities are to be construed against the insurer, State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co v Enterprise Leasing Co , supra at 38, and exclusionary clauses are to be strictly construed against the insurer, Fire Ins Exchange , supra at 687, the circuit court erred in granting plaintiff summary disposition based on the purported exclusion for criminal acts of the insured. Plaintiff now argues that the policy must be read in its entirety to determine if an ambiguity exists, and that the Exclusions in paragraph 2 clearly refer to bodily injury and property damage liability coverage. However, we reject this argument because some of the subsections in paragraph 2 clearly delineate exclusions for either bodily injury or property damage but not both.