We apply Missouri law in this diversity action. If an insurance policy is unambiguous, it is to be enforced according to its terms, but if it is ambiguous, it is construed against the insurer. Whether or not the language of an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law. If the language of a policy is ambiguous (if there is duplicity, indistinctness or uncertainty in its meaning), and therefore open to different constructions, then it will be interpreted in the manner that would ordinarily be understood by the lay person who bought and paid for the policy. Additionally, exclusionary clauses of policies are strictly construed against the insurer, and if they are ambiguous they will be construed favorably to the insured. American States Ins 44 S.W.2d 13, 14-16 (Mo.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to appellants’ arguments, the facts
holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding two exclusions in commercial general liability policy were ambiguous because coverage provided in one section was taken away in another section holding that insurance company had duty to provide coverage for churchs negligent supervision of pastor under professional liability policy because policy did not contain clause excluding coverage for actions arising out of a criminal act or licentious immoral or sexual behavior holding automobile exclusion in general liability policy did not apply because plaintiffs claim of negligent supervision and training was a separate and distinct theory of recovery from the use of an automobile