conclusions in Wescott and Tibbetts provide additional guidance here. In these cases, defendant insurance companies unsuccessfully argued that a prior recovery should be offset against recovery under the UM/UIM provisions of the relevant insurance contracts. The insurance contracts in each case had such offset provisions. Tibbetts, 618 A.2d at 732; Wescott, 397 A.2d at 165 n. 7. [¶ 13] We held that this argument was not persuasive in those cases as it was, and is, contrary to section 2902. “Because a reduction in coverage for amounts received from an insured joint tortfeasor would nullify the statutorily authorized coverage for damages caused by an underinsured motorist,” the offset provision was void as contrary to statute. Tibbetts, 618 A.2d at 734; see also Wescott, 397 A.2d at 170 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 14] Again, the protections of section 2902
holding that a recovery in excess of um uim coverage limits is not inconsistent with the stated goal of section 2902 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 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 excess coverage in four policies was not triggered until primary insurer satisfied the requirements necessary to trigger the excess insurers coverage and paid the full amount of its limits 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