proceedings in this court. III. Explanation of the Importance of the Certified Question The answer to the certified question will determine the outcome of Minkler’s appeal of the district court’s order granting Safe-co’s motion for summary judgment. The certified question is also one of considerable importance to insureds and insurers alike. Many homeowners and other insurance policies covering multiple insureds contain severability provisions similar to the clause at issue in this ease. Because of the ubiquity of such clauses, the issue is a recurrent one and courts have reached different answers. See W. Am. Ins. Co. v. AV&S, 145 F.3d 1224, 1227-29 (10th Cir.1998) (collecting cases). Compare, e.g., Taryn E.F. by Grunewald v. Joshua M.C., 178 Wis.2d 719, 505 N.W.2d 418, 420-22 (1993) (<HOLDING>), with Worcester Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marnell, 398
holding that a policy exclusion applicable to any insured unambiguously barred coverage despite inclusion of severability clause holding that the term any insured was ambiguous in light of a severability clause and construing the contract against the insurer finding coverage holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding that an ownedproperty exclusion did not apply with respect to property that the insured bought only after the policy periods for which the insured sought coverage 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