“To adopt plaintiffs’ logic would require us to ignore the principle that exclusionary clauses never grant coverage, but rather limit the scope of the basic protection statement.[4] “`[E]ach exclusion is meant to be read with the insuring agreement, independently of every other exclusion. The exclusions should be read seriatim, not cumulatively. There is no instance in which an exclusion can properly be regarded as inconsistent with another exclusion, since they bear no relationship with one another.'” Weedo v Stone-E-Brick, Inc, 81 NJ 233, 248; 405 A2d 788 (1979).
Therefore, since we find that the exception to exclusion (a) is not a grant of coverage, it is necessary to examine independently exclusions (k) and (m).” Fresard v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 414 Mich. 686, 697-98 (1982).