fairness and justice” or our determination of what might be most just in a particular case. “ ‘We must look to the Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions of [this] state, to determine [our] public policy and that which is not prohibited by statute, condemned by judicial decision, nor contrary to the public morals contravenes no principle of public policy.’ ” Claude v. Guaranty Nat’l Ins. Co., 679 N.W.2d 659, 663 (Iowa 2004) (quoting Harvey v. Care Initiatives, Inc., 634 N.W.2d 681, 686 (Iowa 2001) and In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 780 (Iowa 2003)). “ ‘The power to invalidate a contract on public policy grounds must be used cautiously and exercised only in cases free from doubt.’ ” Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co. v. Jungling, 654 N.W.2d 530, 540 (Iowa -23 (Ind.Ct. App.2006) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs also contend that, because
holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver 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 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 that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage