Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the named driver exclusion is placed at the end of the policy rather than in the UM/UIM coverage part. But the placement of the exclusion after the “general provisions” of the policy is entirely consistent with an interpretation of the exclusion as applying to “any claim,” regardless of the specific coverage under which the claimant seeks to recover. If, in fact, the exclusion applies only to the liability coverage, as plaintiffs contend, it is more logical that the exclusion would have been placed in the policy part for “liability to others.” We do not think the location of the exclusion supports an interpretation limiting the exclusion to the liability coverage. See Rockford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Econ. Fire & Cas. Co., 217 Ill.App.3d 181, 160 Ill.Dec. 187, 576 N.E.2d 1141, 1144-45 (1991) . In summary, we hold the named driver
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding exclusion was not ambiguous
B. holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver
C. 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
D. 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
E. holding nearly identical named driver exclusion was plain and unambiguous and excluded claim brought under um coverage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.