140 N.J. at 405, 658 A.2d 1246. It also disagreed with our opinion on Aubrey: Thus, we disagree with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that UIM insurance is not personal to the insured. The Appellate Division construed the statutory phrase “held by the person seeking recovery” to “include policies pursuant to which the person is an insured, regardless of who may have pm-chased the policy.” 274 N.J.Super. at 243, 643 A.2d 1043. [Id. 140 N.J. at 404, 658 A.2d 1246.] The Court concluded, The right to recover UIM benefits depends on the UIM limits chosen by the insured. Recovery does not depend on the limits of other UIM policies, such as the mother’s policy in Landi or Koch’s policy in the instant case. See Harden, v. Monroe Guaranty Ins. Co., 626 N.E. 2d 814, 818 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). [Id. at 405, 658 A.2d 1246.] The Supreme
holding that recovery from the tortfeasors insurer is a condition precedent to a claim for uim benefits holding plaintiffs uim claims did not accrue until his lawsuit against the underinsured driver was resolved where insurance policy provided for uim coverage only after liability policies had been exhausted holding that prospective buyer of used car could not recover under dealers uim endorsement because uim insurance is not for protection of vehicles but of persons holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that because plaintiff released the tortfeasor plaintiff may not assert a claim against the uim carrier because of the derivative nature of the uim carriers liability