In Hartford Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Jackson, 206 Ill. App. 3d 465, 564 N.E.2d 906, 151 Ill. Dec. 451 (1990), identical language was included among a litany of other exclusions. Some exclusions referred to "family members," while others simply excluded "any person" from liability coverage. In Jackson the entitlement exclusion referred to "any person." In interpreting the policy the court reasoned that when read as a whole, the policy implied that coverage for a "family member" was barred only by those exclusions which referenced that language. Finding the interchange of those terms ambiguous, the Jackson court interpreted the policy and, specifically, the entitlement exclusion in favor of coverage, thereby obligating Hartford to defend and indemnify its insured: "Where a policy creates two distinct classes, namely, 'family member' and 'any person' and where several exclusions specifically include 'family member' but the exclusion under scrutiny does not, then, at the very least, it is ambiguous as to whether a 'family member' is barred from coverage under said exclusion." Jackson, 206 Ill. App. 3d at 476, 564 N.E.2d at 912.