(en banc) (“[E]ven if a policy provision is unambiguous, the provision is void and unenforceable if it violates public policy by attempting to dilute, condition, or limit statutorily mandated coverage.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. (“Insurance policy clauses that are contrary to a provision of a statute are void as against public policy. Consistently, this court has refused to enforce provisions in automobile insurance policies that are against public policy.” (citation omitted)). See also Brown v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 137 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that, under Wyoming law, insurance contracts must not conflict with pertinent statutes or public policy); Mut. Reinsurance Bureau v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., 969 F.2d 931, 934-35 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The provisions of the Policy quoted by
holding arbitration clause in reinsurance agreement unenforceable under kansas statute holding that an arbitration clause was unenforceable because it prohibited an award of punitive damages which was available to the plaintiff under title vii holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable