limitations on protection are those specifically set out in the statute itself — that the insured is legally entitled to recover damages and that the tortfeasor is uninsured. Parents assert that they reasonably expected to recover full coverage based on five vehicles and that if the tortfeasor would have had coverage equal to the five stacked UM coverages, he would have been liable for 15% post-judgment interest. Thus, Parents reason that State Farm should be liable for 15% post-judgment interest. {42} We cannot agree. We do not believe that the legislature intended to hold insurance companies liable for 15% interest on a judgment, above and beyond the recovery limits of the policy, based on the tortious conduct of the tortfeasor. See Stewart, 104 N.M. at 747-48, 726 P.2d at 1377-78 (<HOLDING>). As observed by State Farm, the imposition of
holding that pecuniary damages are not property damages under insureds policy holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law  must yield to federal limitations holding that liability insurance policy that expressly excluded coverage for the insureds intentional acts did not cover punitive damages award assessed against the insured and stating in dictum that public policy forbids insurance coverage for punitive damages holding that when insureds counsel repeatedly mentioned um policy limits and the jury awarded the policy limit there was reversible error holding that the insureds recovery could not exceed the lability limitations of his policy even though punitive damages were appropriate under the um provision