Wickline, 530 So.2d at 714; Dunnam, 366 So.2d at 672. Our case law is in accord with this view. See Johnston v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 727 F.2d 548, 550 (5th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (rejecting plaintiff's argument because it rested on state uninsured motorist statutes “that are grossly different from Mississippi’s”). 9 . See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga, 636 So.2d 658, 663-65 (Miss.1994) (declaring invalid offset provision which operated to deny insured the maximum excess coverage the insured paid for); Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Tompkins, 490 So.2d 897, 904-05 (Miss.1986) (declaring void policy provision which stated that nonlisted vehicles would not be covered, but failed to inform insured that insured would not receive minimum statutoiy coverage); Nester, 459 So.2d at 793 (<HOLDING>); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 329
holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver holding that policy exclusion for uninsured motorist claims involving permissive users violated mississippi public policy as expressed in the um act holding that public policy favors the exclusion of intentional acts as contained in the mjua policy holding that while the owner of several vehicles by paying a single premium for um coverage applicable to only one of them secures um coverage for himself and his family while occupying the uninsured vehicles as well as the insured vehicle the number of uninsured motorist coverages available to be stacked should be based upon the number of coverages for which uninsured motorist premiums were paid holding business automobile policy issued to a corporation did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for owners son