Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): exclusion states: “If you have asked us to exclude any person from coverage under this policy, then we will not provide coverage for any claim arising from an accident or loss involving a motorized vehicle being operated by that excluded person.” We agree with the insurer that this sentence, at least when considered in isolation, clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage for Scott’s UIM claim. The word “you” is defined in the policy as the person shown as the named insured on the declarations page. For this policy, that person is Rhonda. There is no dispute that Rhonda asked the insurer “to exclude [a] person from coverage under this policy” and that person was Scott. It is also undisputed that the UIM claim asserted by Scott arose from an accident involving a 10 (Okla.Civ.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). We turn now to the plaintiffs’ contention 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding similar exclusion excluding coverage for any loss was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for um claims even though such claims were not expressly mentioned in the exclusion (C) holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver (D) holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage (E) holding nearly identical named driver exclusion was plain and unambiguous and excluded claim brought under um coverage
Output (English): holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage