or item of a larger aggregate, group, or principle”). We agree with the insurer that the second sentence of the exclusion clarifies that, when Scott Thomas is the driver, coverage of “any claim” is excluded, not only for Scott, but for o he broad scope of the exclusion stated in the first sentence by expressly stating that the exclusion “includes” claims of vicarious liability asserted against persons other than the excluded driver. The plaintiffs claim an ambiguity also arises from the fact th is unambiguous. By the plain meaning of its terms, this provision excludes coverage for any claim that arises from the excluded driver’s operation of a motor vehicle, including underinsured motorist claims. Cf. Castaneda v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 357 Ark. 345, 166 S.W.3d 556, 561 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Kiehne, 641 P.2d at 502 (holding named driver
holding similar exclusion excluding coverage for any loss was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for um claims even though such claims were not expressly mentioned in the exclusion holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage holding nearly identical named driver exclusion was plain and unambiguous and excluded claim brought under um coverage