With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 826, 618 N.Y.S.2d 50, 50 51 (1994) (denying underinsurance benefits to daughter of corporation's owner because corporate policy provided coverage for 'owned autos only' "); Kitts v. Utica National Ins. Group, 106 Ohio App.3d 692, 667 N.E.2d 30, 31 (1995), appeal denied, 74 Ohio St.3d 1513, 659 N.E.2d 1289 (1996) ("There, as here, the policy language clearly differentiated between corporate entities and individuals”); Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKee, 943 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex.1997) (rejecting argument that references to family members in policy issued to corporation provided coverage for sole shareholder’s daughter). Recently, an intermediate appellate court in Illinois reached a similar conclusion. Rohe v. CNA Ins. Co., 312 Ill.App.3d 123, 244 Ill.Dec. 442, 726 N.E.2d 38, 43 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Neither the children nor the amicus

A: holding term third party did not include an uninsured motorist carrier
B: holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute
C: holding that language requiring insurer to pay all sums which the insured  shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile includes recovery of exemplary damages under uninsured motorist provision of policy
D: holding business automobile policy issued to a corporation did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for owners son
D.