Hill’s umbrella insurance did not provide coverage for bodily injuries Gardineer sustained in a car accident caused by Hill’s niece while she was driving Hill’s car with his permission.  The umbrella policy extended coverage only to “insureds” a term it defined to include only the named insured, his wife and other relative who resided in the named insured’s house.  The niece did not live in Hill’s house, so she was not an insured covered by the umbrella policy.  Also, she could not claim coverage under exclusion 29 and its exception.  The exclusion barred coverage of claims agains the named insured for negligent entrustment of the car while the exception eliminated the exclusion if the under;lying auto policy provided the insured broader coverage.  Here, the claimant sued the niece, not Hill.  And all the exception did was eliminate the exclusion.  It didn’t provide coverage in addition to the umbrella policy’s general terms which excluded Hill’s niece from the definition of insured and thus from coverage.