In this appeal, we must decide whether Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Nationwide) has a duty to defend Donald Mashewske under an automobile insurance policy issued to Jimmy McFarland. In the trial court, Nationwide sought a declaration that Mashewske was not a "covered person" under the policy. McFarland counterclaimed against Nationwide seeking the opposite declaration. Nationwide and McFarland both filed motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court granted McFarlands motion and denied Nationwides. On appeal, Nationwide asserts two points of error (1) the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant McFarlands motion, and (2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for McFarland and denying Nationwides motion because (a) Mashewske was not a "covered person" under the policy, and (b) the policys "unauthorized use" exclusion deprived Mashewske of coverage under the policy. We conclude the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over McFarlands counterclaim. We further conclude that Mashewske was not a "covered person" under the policy. Thus, we reverse that portion of the trial courts order granting McFarland summary judgment on this point. We render judgment in favor of Nationwide on the coverage issue.