Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a mere policy change. It was the creation of a new insurance policy with a new named insured. Before McDonald became the named insured, he had never been given the opportunity to accept or reject UIM coverage. 2d 1197, 1200-01 (1993) (en banc) (concluding that, although an insurer by statute must offer uninsured coverage when it initially issues a policy, it need not make another offer when an insured adds, deletes, or replaces vehicles, the court noting that “once an insured has been made aware that the coverage is available, an insurer is not obligated ... to inquire continuously whether the insured really meant to refuse”) (quoting White v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 68 Or.App. 11, 680 P.2d 700 (1984)); El-Habr v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 626 S.W.2d 171, 172 (Tex.Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>), with Withrow v. Pickard, 905 P.2d 800 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding in a case involving a multiplevehicle policy that a new offer of uninsured motorist coverage was not required for the addition of a new vehicle which was comparable to the renewal or supplementation of an existing policy events that did not trigger the statutory requirement of a new offer the courts holding was based in part upon the principle that an insurance contract is personal to the insured because it insures the risk of loss to the insured and does not attach to specific vehicles (C) holding that under minnesota law an insurance policy or provision not filed with the commissioner of insurance is unenforceable (D) holding it is settled that in construing an endorsement to an insurance policy the endorsement and the policy must be read together and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement (E) holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy
Output (English): holding in a case involving a multiplevehicle policy that a new offer of uninsured motorist coverage was not required for the addition of a new vehicle which was comparable to the renewal or supplementation of an existing policy events that did not trigger the statutory requirement of a new offer the courts holding was based in part upon the principle that an insurance contract is personal to the insured because it insures the risk of loss to the insured and does not attach to specific vehicles