Attorney successfully handled an appeal from an adverse decision which had refused to enforce or apply a household exclusion in a fatal UIM claim. The lower court had found that the policy's Limit of Liability clause acted as a new insuring agreement which, because it appeared after the household exclusion in sequence, either superseded or at least created an ambiguity with regard to that earlier-appearing household exclusion. Under either rationale, the trial court refused to apply the exclusion and found instead that the insured's estate was entitled to coverage. In a 2 to 1 decision, the appellate court reversed the lower court and remanded the case to the trial court for the entry of judgment in defendant insurance company's favor. The panel properly explained the different purposes served by insuring agreements, exclusions, and limit of liability clauses, and it concluded that defendant's household exclusion was enforceable.