We agree with the motion court that there was no ambiguity and that the broad language of both exclusions at issue unmistakably barred coverage (see, Bendis v Federal Ins. Co., 1989 WL 161437 [US Dist Ct, Kan, Dec. 4, 1989, Saffels, JJ, affd 958 F2d 960). We therefore need not determine whether Federal was obligated to advance defense costs.
We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.