With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (adopting view among states that if two escape clauses within insurance policy operate to negate coverage, those escape clauses are null and void). 8 . Harris v. Magee, 573 So.2d at 653; see o.2d 670, 673 (Miss.1976) ("An insurance company cannot by the provisions in one uninsured motorist endorsement limit its liability and endorsement in a separate policy and defeat the mandatory provisions of the statute."); Talbot, 291 So.2d at 703 (declaring invalid clause which reduced uninsured motorist coverage by amounts paid under medical coverage provisions of policy); Lowery, 285 So.2d at 771-77 (declaring invalid restriction in policy that required "insured" to own the automobile described in the policy until uninsured motorist coverage applied); Harthcock, 248 So.2d at 459-60, 461-62 (<HOLDING>); see also Youngblood, 515 F.2d at 1256-58

A: holding that language requiring insurer to pay all sums which the insured  shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile includes recovery of exemplary damages under uninsured motorist provision of policy
B: holding that a policy with an excess other insurance clause provides no coverage until a policy with a pro rata other insurance clause is exhausted
C: holding that policy exclusion for uninsured motorist claims involving permissive users violated mississippi public policy as expressed in the um act
D: holding that conditioning uninsured motorist coverage on insureds agreement to not settle with other tortfeasors contravenes the um act also declaring void other insurance provision of policy which operated to relieve insurer of payment if insured secured statutory minimum from other source
D.