In light of those comments, upon reconsideration we generally reaffirmed, noting that the relevant case law had been available to the defendants before our court. See People v. Jogi, 317 Ill. App.3d 532, 537, 740 N.E.2d 88, 92 (2000) (Jogi II), vacated remanded with directions, 194 Ill.2d 575-76, 744 N.E.2d 1271 (2001) (nonprecedential supervisory order); People v. Harden, 321 Ill. App.3d 203, 209, 747 N.E.2d 1095, 1100 (2001). We were wrong. The supreme court yet again vacated our Jogi II decision.

Additionally, “provisions that limit or exclude coverage will be interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and against the insurer.” American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill.2d 473, 479, 227 Ill.Dec. 149, 687 N.E.2d 72 (1997) ; see Thompson v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 319 Ill.App.3d 158, 160, 253 Ill.Dec. 207, 744 N.E.2d 1271 (2001).¶ 21 In the present case, the Affirmative policy provided automatic coverage for a newly acquired vehicle “of which” Clark obtained ownership during the policy period and “regarding which” Affirmative was “notified, in writing, no later than 30 days after acquisition,” of Clark's election to make the policy applicable to the newly acquired vehicle.