With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were promulgated pursuant to the Department’s authority under the UM Act and expressly pertain to UM coverage, the regulations remain extant, and I discern no salient policy that would distinguish UIM from UM coverage in terms of the viability of such an exclusion. Concededly, Windrim and Eichel-man both approved other owned vehicle/household family member exclusions that are not authorized by Section 63.2. However, I find it significant that the Department’s decision to eliminate the other owned vehicle/household family member exclusion from the approved form defining the minimum authorized coverage was expressly predicated upon judicial decisions which are no longer valid in light of this Court’s present interpretation of the MVFRL. See Windrim, 537 Pa. at 135, 641 A.2d at 1157 (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, the Department’s

A: recognizing the effective overruling of bankes
B: recognizing implicit overruling of wehr
C: recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel
D: recognizing prandinis overruling
A.