With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". motorist coverage under ScotC-Pontzer, and expressly overruled Ezawa. Galatis held as follows: Absent specific language to the contrary, a policy of insurance that names a corporation as an insured for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage covers a loss sustained by an employee of the corporation only if the loss occurs within the course and scope of employment. Additionally, where a policy of insurance designates a corporation as a named insured, the designation of ‘family members’ of the named insured as ‘other insureds’ does not extend insurance coverage to a family member of an employee of the corporation, unless that employee is also a named insured. Galatis, 797 N.E.2d at 1271 (emphasis added). See also Masco Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 382 F.3d 624 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that Mr. Posante’s claim for

A: recognizing the restrictions that galatis places upon the availability of scotupontzer uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage
B: holding that while the owner of several vehicles by paying a single premium for um coverage applicable to only one of them secures um coverage for himself and his family while occupying the uninsured vehicles as well as the insured vehicle the number of uninsured motorist coverages available to be stacked should be based upon the number of coverages for which uninsured motorist premiums were paid
C: holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute
D: holding that under the plain and obvious meaning of the uim statute a prerequisite to the term underinsured motor vehicle is the existence of  bodily injury liability insurance coverage which is less than the liability for damages imposed by law  and where no such coverage existed tortfeasor was not underinsured under the statute but rather uninsured concluding that terms underinsured and uninsured are mutually exclusive as applied to the same motor vehicle and the combination of these two coverages by the insured was contrary to legislative intent
A.