reasons, or is agreed upon by both the named insured and the insurer .... Iowa Code § 515D.4(2) (emphasis added). Significantly, section 515D.4(2) allows the parties to an insurance contract to exclude a person “from the policy.” (Emphasis added.) The statutory authorization is not limited to the liability coverage of the insurance policy. Thus, our legislature has made a policy decision that exclusions such as the one at issue here are not contrary to the public good. In view of the legislature’s authorization of named driver exclusions and its decision to require UIM coverage only for drivers protected by the liability coverage of the policy, we conclude the named driver exclusion in Progressive’s policy does not violate the public policy of this state. See Schneck, 813 A.2d at 834 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we reject the plaintiffs’ argument
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 second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion holding nearly identical exclusion of  any claim  unambiguously operates to bar recovery of uim benefits under policy when driver is excluded 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 nearly identical named driver exclusion was plain and unambiguous and excluded claim brought under um coverage