Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): policy. See generally Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 429, 216 P.3d 213, 226 (2009) (“Parties are free to contract, and the courts will enforce their contracts if they are not unconscionable, illegal, or in violation of public policy.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fitts, 120 Nev. 707, 708, 99 P.3d 1160, 1161 (2004) (considering a certified question regarding the enforceability of a provision in an insurance policy that required an insured to arbitrate or file suit on a claim for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage that was outside the statutorily proscribed statute of limitations, this court held that such a provision was “unenforceable and therefore void as against Nevada public policy”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Hinkel, 87 Nev. 478, 481, 488 P.2d 1151, 1153 (1971) (<HOLDING>); see also Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued (B) holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer (C) holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination (D) holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy (E) holding that an insurance company may limit coverage only if the limitation does not contravene public policy
Output (English): holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy