In Westfield Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 11th Dist. No. 2003-T-0093, 2004 Ohio 4393, cited by appellants, the court interpreted policy language identical to the language present in this case. After noting that the declarations page referred to "covered autos," the court interpreted the definition of who is an insured, observing: "The definition of 'who is an insured' includes 'you,' 'if you are an individual, any family member,' and 'anyone else occupying a covered auto.' The third enumerated paragraph specifically states if the insured is 'anyone else,' he or she must be occupying a covered auto. However, the first two paragraphs, including 'you' and 'family members,' does not specifically state that the insured must be occupying a covered auto. Thus, the policy is ambiguous as to whether the insured and family members must be occupying a covered auto." Id. at P33. The court then addressed Westfield's reliance on the "other owned vehicle" exclusion, as appellee does here. The court concluded: "As just indicated, the policy does not clearly require a party to be driving a covered auto. Were we to read the uninsured motorist portion of the policy to require the insured to be operating a covered auto, the exclusions set forth in the policy would be redundant: There would be no reason to exclude three specific situations addressing a non-covered auto because all situations involving non-covered autos are excluded. Moreover, the 'who is an insured' portion of the policy suggests that the insured and family members do not have to be occupying a covered auto. Consequently, Westfield's policy is ambiguous and reasonable (sic) susceptible to different interpretations. As we construe an insurance policy liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer, Westfield's position is without merit." Id. at P34.