With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". N.W.2d 41 (Minn.2008). Carlson—decided nearly seven years after Holmstrom v. III. Farmers Ins. Co., 631 N.W.2d 102 (Minn.App.2001), on which Pepper relies—rejected the idea that the statute is intended to define mandatory minimum coverage. 749 N.W.2d at 47. The supreme court therefore concluded that “subdivision 3a(5) constitutes a system of priorities and as such governs the source, not the scope, of coverage.” Id. at 47 n. 4. Because the policy in this case provides coverage when an insured is injured by an underinsured motor vehicle and specifically excludes vehicles that are provided liability coverage under the policy from the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle, I would conclude that Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5), does not entitle Pepper to UIM benefits. See id. at 47 (<HOLDING>). Because I believe that the plain language of

A: holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage
B: 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
C: holding that because the policy by its terms afforded the injured party no coverage neither does minnstat  65b49 subd 3a5
D: holding that the certificate of selfinsurance filed with the commissioner is the functional equivalent of an insurance policy for purposes of minnesotas nofault statutes minnstat  65b49 subd 31 2002
C.