Dickson, C.J.
This appeal challenges a grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company on the issue of whether its automobile policy provided uninsured motorists coverage for automo-bile property damage caused by a hit-and-run driver where no personal injury resulted. We affirm.
Plaintiffs Shannon Robinson and Bryan Robinson seek coverage for property damage under the uninsured motorists coverage of an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant Erie Insurance Exchange, arising from an accident where the Robinsons’ insured vehicle was struck by a Jeep operated by a hit-and-run driver. Erie denied the Robinsons’ claim, and the Robinsons brought this action. In response to the Robinsons’ motion for summary judgment on the coverage issue, Erie requested summary judgment in its favor. Following written briefs and oral arguments from the parties, the trial court entered summary judgment for Erie.
….
We note, however, that Exclusion 4 of the Erie policy precludes coverage for property damage “if the owner or operator of the other ‘motor vehicle‘ cannot be identified“—language found ambiguous in Gillespie. Appellant’s App’x at 21 (italics added). This exclusion, however, has not been asserted by Erie as the basis for its denial of coverage. Furthermore, for an exclu-sion to apply, the policy’s insuring agreement must initially provide coverage from which there is something to exclude. The insuring agreement in the Erie policy would have provided uninsured motorists coverage in relation to the hit-and-run Jeep whose driver and owner were unknown, but for the requirement that bodily injury result. Under the facts of this case, where there was no resulting bodily injury, the Erie policy did not provide any uninsured motorists coverage relative to the hit-and-run Jeep that struck the Robinsons’ vehicle. Because the Erie insuring agreement provides no uninsured motorists coverage here, there was no coverage subject to any exclusions, and the construction and application of Exclusion 4 is irrelevant.
Under the undisputed facts of the present case, neither the first nor the second category that may constitute an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the Erie policy encompasses the hit-and-run Jeep that struck the Robinsons’ vehicle. In the context of a hit-and-run driver causing an ac-cident, the availability of uninsured motorists coverage (which depends on whether the other ve-hicle fits one of the three Erie policy meanings for “uninsured motor vehicle”) is solely deter-mined by the third meaning, which expressly includes a “hit-and-run motor vehicle” whose driv-er and owner are unknown, but only if the other vehicle causes bodily injury to the insured. The-se provisions are not ambiguous and do not require the application of rules of construction. Be-cause personal injury did not result to Bryan Robinson in the accident, the Erie policy does not provide uninsured motorists coverage with respect to the property damage sustained by the Robinsons’ vehicle. The trial court was correct to grant Erie’s motion for summary judgment.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rucker, David, Massa, Rush, JJ., concur.