In American Economy Insurance Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, 89 P.3d 1051, the insured was a closely-held corporation which operated a pharmacy. The UM endorsement identified the pharmacy as the sole "named insured" and listed the "form of business" as a "corporation." Id. In part, the endorsement defined "who is an insured" as "1. You ; and 2. If you are an individual, any 'family member.'" A "family member" was then defined as "a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child." Id. The court concluded that the word "You" was not susceptible to interpretation: it plainly referred to the corporation as the named insured. Just as clearly, since the named insured was not an individual, family members were not insured. Id. Therefore, the owner's minor son was not entitled to UM benefits. Id. The court noted that the vast majority of jurisdictions conclude as a matter of law that similar policy language is not ambiguous. Id.