Corp., 307 Ga. App. 369, 371 (705 SE2d 219) (2010). Automobile insurance policy exclusions are not per se void as against public policy. See Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Blaylock, 193 Ga. App. 175, 176 (2) (387 SE2d 405) (1989). Public policy may justify enlarging an insurer’s risk where acts of the undisputed insured driver are concerned, but not necessarily so where an unauthorized driver who is not an insured under the policy is involved. This [Cjourt has previously affirmed declaratory judgment for the insurer where such an unauthorized and thus uncovered use of the vehicle occurred. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Rogers v. Travelers Indem. Co. &c., 202 Ga. App. 77, 79 (2) (413 SE2d 254) (1991); see also Ison v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 230 Ga. App. 554, 555 (496 SE2d 478) (1998) (<HOLDING>). Citing Woody v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins.
holding that only deliberate clear and unambiguous statements are judicial admissions 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 recognizing that an insurance contract will generally be enforced as written unless to do so would violate the law or public policy holding that driver exclusions which are clear unambiguous and supported by consideration are enforceable and do not violate public policy or compulsory insurance laws holding that under oregon law an agreement must be supported by consideration to be legally enforceable