identify no public policy clearly expressed in Washington statutes or case law that would justify overriding the policy’s explicit coverage for malicious prosecution. Lacking that kind of support, Hartford relies on decisions that cite public policy to uphold coverage provisions. However, those decisions interpreted other types of insurance policies and, because they concerned policy limitations and exclusions, did not reduce the explicit coverage that the insured had purchased. See Cohen, 124 Wn.2d at 881 (“holding] that [in professional liability policy] the coverage limits placed on claims involving sexual misconduct on the part of an insured psychologist do not violate the public policy of this state”); Detweiler v. J.C. Penney Cas. Ins. Co., 110 Wn.2d 99, 105, 751 P.2d 282 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spokane Sch. Dist.
holding that an automobile dealers liability insurer was not liable for any damage allegedly caused by the negligence of the dealer and sustained in an accident involving an automobile purchased from the dealer or to defend the dealer in the negligence action where the injury occurred outside of the policy period and occurrence was defined in the policy as an accident including injurious exposure to conditions which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damages   recognizing that limitation of coverage in automobile liability policy to  accident s  was founded on the elemental proposition that injuries will not be deemed caused by accident where the injuries are intentionally inflicted this generally being considered a risk which it would be against public policy to insure holding first that injuries sustained during contact sports were foreseeable then deciding that public policy insulated the defendant from liability for those injuries holding that homeowners policy precluded coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries