However, after The Definition sets forth what an uninsured motor vehicle is, Coverage U endeavors to describe two situations where a vehicle that meets The Definition is nonetheless not an uninsured motor vehicle. From the argument in Linda's brief, this court divines she believes there is an ambiguity when The Definition is read in conjunction with Exception 1. Linda's hypothesis, as this court comprehends it, is that the Ford is an uninsured motor vehicle under The Definition, but not an uninsured motor vehicle under Exception 1. Relying on Harrison, id. at 270, Linda insists coverage clauses are read broadly, while exclusion clauses are read narrowly so as to afford the greatest possible coverage. Consequently, reasons Linda, this court should construe the ambiguity in her favor and hold the Ford was an uninsured motor vehicle.
Language is ambiguous if it is reasonably open to different constructions.
The test is whether the language, in the context of the entire agreement, is susceptible of more than one construction, giving words their plain meaning as understood by a reasonable person. Ambiguous provisions of an insurance policy are construed against the insurer. The provision was identical to Coverage U in Policy 567. The passenger in Eaton maintained that inasmuch as there was no liability coverage because of the household exclusion, the vehicle was an uninsured motor vehicle insofar as her bodily injury claim was concerned. As noted earlier, the uninsured motor vehicle provision in the State Farm policy in Eaton was identical to Coverage U in Policy 567.