would apply, so there would be no liability coverage for damages sustained by the unfit driver’s victims and the public policy of protecting potential claimants from such drivers would be undermined. We question whether it is in the public interest to “rewrite” the named driver exclusion in such a way that more protection is provided to the excluded driver than to the general public. Because the exclusion as written promotes the public policy underlying named driver exclusions, we will not invalidate it or restrict its application as urged by the plaintiffs. See O’Brien, 928 P.2d at 324, 326 (refusing to limit named driver exclusion to instances when named driver was negligent, rejecting argument that applying exclusion to UM coverage violated public policy); Schneck, 813 A.2d at 832 (<HOLDING>). Finally, we note that our legislature has
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 holding identical exclusion was consistent with public policy of cost containment and consumer choice evidenced by statutory scheme that tied uim coverage to liability coverage and authorized named driver exclusions holding nearly identical exclusion did not violate public policy noting there is no clear legislative pronouncement of public policy requiring umuim coverage for a named driver exclusion holding nearly identical named driver exclusion was plain and unambiguous and excluded claim brought under um coverage 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