and noted that “[t]he many different meanings given the word in the cases which have considered this issue, demonstrate that the word has no precise meaning, and is, therefore sufficiently ambiguous....” 848 S.W.2d 649, 651 (1993). The Supreme Court of Iowa has also found “occupying” to be ambiguous. Henderson v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 252 Iowa 97, 106 N.W.2d 86, 89 (Iowa 1960) (citations omitted). In addition, as an Illinois court observed in a similar situation to the case before us: [I]t is the use of the word ‘upon’ which creates an ambiguity. It cannot mean that the insured, to be within the meaning of the clause, had to be couched on the roof of the car or on the running board or sitting on the hood. Wolf v. American Casualty Co., 2 Ill. App.2d 124, 118 N.E.2d 777, 780 (1954) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 14.] We hold that the term “occupying” as
holding that while the owner of several vehicles by paying a single premium for um coverage applicable to only one of them secures um coverage for himself and his family while occupying the uninsured vehicles as well as the insured vehicle the number of uninsured motorist coverages available to be stacked should be based upon the number of coverages for which uninsured motorist premiums were paid holding that a vehicles passenger had been seized and was entitled to challenge the traffic stop holding the purpose of a checkpoint was valid when officers stopped vehicles to look for any violations on the vehicles such as drivers license equipment or inspection holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit holding that a man standing between two insured vehicles while attempting to jump start one of them was occupying them when one of the vehicles between which he was standing was struck by a third vehicle