(district court entered summary judgment for insurance company holding plaintiff could not recover underinsurance benefits from an automobile insurance policy when a car struck the decedent’s tractor because there was no reasonable expectation of coverage; plaintiff appealed arguing policy language should control rather than reasonable expectations doctrine and the “owned, but not insured” exclusion did not bar recovery; on appeal, the court held that the district court erred in holding a lack of reasonable expectations precluded coverage because the policy language was not ambiguous; but summary judgment was applicable because the exclusion did apply and did bar recovery under the policy; decedent owned the tractor he was driving when he was injured; summary judgment affirmed).