recover both liability and UIM benefits under a single insurance policy — is distinguishable from the issue of stacking coverage under separate insurance policies. We know of no case where a Texas court has permitted an injured passenger to obtain both liability and UIM benefits under a single insurance policy, and appellants cite us to no such authority. Moreover, a number of Texas courts have upheld limitations on UM/UIM coverage in recent years without concluding that those limitations contravene public policy. See, e.g., Scarborough v. Employers Casualty Co., 820 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.App. 1991, no writ) (woman injured while, a passenger in her own vehicle precluded from UIM coverage as a matter of law); Berry v. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 782 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. App.1989, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); Sims v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 781 S.W.2d
holding valid an ownedbutunscheduled restriction in a um policy 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 holding that a divorced parent of a deceased child may chose to recover wrongful death damages under either her um policy or her exhusbands um policy which ever is more favorable but is prohibited by the antistacking statute from recovering under both policies holding that when insureds counsel repeatedly mentioned um policy limits and the jury awarded the policy limit there was reversible error holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver