Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): held that the MVFRL mandated that the driver be covered, up to the MVFRL limits, by the owner’s policy issued to Metro Ford from Universal. Id. at 283. Hargrave and Rader teach that the insured exclusion in NCC’s owner’s policy is invalid to the extent it would deny coverage, up to the MVFRL limits, for Bough’s permissive use of the Cougar. See § 303.190.7; Halpin v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 823 S.W.2d 479, 483 (Mo. banc 1992). Therefore, the NCC policy provides Bough with the mandatory MVFRL liability insurance coverage of $25,000 per person. The insured exclusion in the NCC policy, however, is enforceable to bar any additional liability insurance coverage for Bough beyond that mandated by the MVFRL. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zumwalt, 825 S.W.2d 906, 909 (Mo.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s first point is granted. Point III 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a household exclusion in the policy was void insofar as it denied coverage in the amount required by  3031902 but it was valid as to any coverage exceeding that amount (B) 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 (C) 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 (D) holding that a hospital may not assert a statutory lien in an amount exceeding the amount it agreed to accept from the patients insurer (E) holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage
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