‘The’ requires specification.

We hold the severability of interests clause requires the exclusion to be interpreted narrowly and only applied to exclude bodily injuries of the insured claiming coverage and his resident family. See Sacharko v. Center Equities Limited Partnership, 2 Conn. App. 439, 479 A.2d 1219 (1984); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 60 Ill.2d 295, 327 N.E.2d 321 (1975). Several considerations support this conclusion. First, it is implied from the severability of interests clause. Bituminous, supra; Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. American General Insurance Co., 455 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1970). Second, there is a grammatical ambiguity in the exclusion itself that suggests an interpretation favoring the insured. In the opinion transferring the case to this Court, Judge Smith analyzed the ambiguity:

It is clear that one insured under a policy is subject to liability for injury to another insured. The exclusionary clause in the preceding cases standardly utilizes the phrase found in the policy before us -- 'the insureds.' The word 'insured' is the usual character of word which can be either singular or plural in meaning. The article 'the' is a word of specificity as contrasted to the articles 'a' and 'an' which are general in description encompassing any of the class. If the article 'the' is combined with the plural 'insured' it clearly would encompass all insured under the policy. If on the other hand it is combined with the singular 'insured' it speaks to a specific insured rather than all members of the class wherein the terms 'an insured' or 'any insured' are more properly utilized.