sentence unambiguously excludes “any claim” arising out of the excluded driver’s operation of a motor vehicle. The second sentence clearly states that this exclusion “includes” claims of vicarious liability. To interpret the second sentence as limiting the scope of the first sentence to only instances when the excluded driver is liable would result in a strained and unnatural interpretation of the contractual language. See id. at 868-69 (‘We do not indulge in a strained or unnatural interpretation of policy language merely to find ambiguity.”). For these reasons, we conclude the second sentence of the named driver exclusion cannot reasonably be interpreted as a limitation on the exclusion of “any claim” as stated in the first sentence of the provision. See Nelson, 162 P.3d at 1234-35 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the second sentence of the
holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding nearly identical named driver exclusion was plain and unambiguous and excluded claim brought under um coverage holding nearly identical exclusion did not violate public policy noting there is no clear legislative pronouncement of public policy requiring umuim coverage for a named driver exclusion holding exclusion was harmless error