law pertaining to UM coverage when considering the applicability of UIM coverage. See, e.g., Jeffrey v. Erie Ins. Exch., 423 Pa.Super. 483, 505, 621 A.2d 635, 646 (1993) ("Our legislature ... intended underinsured motorist coverage to operate in the same manner as uninsured motorist coverage only for motorists who were injured by underinsured motorists.”); Newkirk, 388 Pa.Super. at 63, 564 A.2d at 1267 (same); Marroquin v. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co., 404 Pa.Super. 444, 450, 591 A.2d 290, 293 (1991) (noting that “[t]he Financial Responsibility Law also acts to eliminate the distinctions between uninsured motorist protection and underinsured motorist protection” (citation omitted)). See generally Alan I. Widiss. Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance 2d (rev.) § 31.6 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Allwein v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 448
holding that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage holding that in order for insured to qualify for uim benefits there must have been a liability policy in effect um coverage does not satisfy this requirement recognizing the overlap of issues pertaining to um and uim coverage and describing areas as to which distinct treatment is appropriate holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy holding that a recovery in excess of um uim coverage limits is not inconsistent with the stated goal of section 2902