With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J. 477, 483, 388 A.2d 603, 606 (1978) which states “[w]ere a person able to insure himself against economic consequences of his intentional wrongdoing, the deterrence attributable to financial responsibility would be missing.”); Bollinger, 476 N.W.2d 697 (S.D.1991) (stating that if insured, through intentional acts, consciously controls risks covered by the policy, the central concept of insurance is violated); SDCL 53-9-3 (providing that contracts which have the purpose of exempting anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law are against public policy). [¶ 34.] Under South Dakota law, “public policy prohibits extending insurance coverage to an individual who intentionally harms others.” Wertz, 540 N.W.2d at 640 (<HOLDING>). As mentioned earlier, this principle was

A: holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver
B: holding a driver who intentionally drives a car into truck with intention of injuring passenger is not allowed to inflict deliberate harm with financial impunity
C: holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs
D: holding that because the government was unable to prove that a truck in which illegal drugs were discovered was stolen the driver and passenger had standing to challenge the search
B.