underinsured vehicle. [¶ 6] The Bowdens’ policy complies with Maine’s underinsured vehicle statute, which defines an “underinsured motor vehicle” as “a motor vehicle for which coverage is provided, but in amounts less than the minimum limits for bodily injury liability insurance provided for under the motorist’s financial responsibility laws of this State or less than the limits of the injured party’s uninsured vehicle coverage.” 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2902(1) (2000). The Bowdens suggest that this language means that only the insurance that covers the vehicle itself is used as a comparison with the injured party’s underinsured vehicle coverage limits, or that the policies covering each individual must be separately compared against the Bowdens’ underinsured vehicle policy 1276-77 (Me.1991) (<HOLDING>); Connolly v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 455 A.2d
holding that under the plain and obvious meaning of the uim statute a prerequisite to the term underinsured motor vehicle is the existence of  bodily injury liability insurance coverage which is less than the liability for damages imposed by law  and where no such coverage existed tortfeasor was not underinsured under the statute but rather uninsured concluding that terms underinsured and uninsured are mutually exclusive as applied to the same motor vehicle and the combination of these two coverages by the insured was contrary to legislative intent recognizing that policy determines duty holding that the insurance applicable to the tortfeasors vehicle must be compared to the underinsured vehicle policy limits to determine whether a vehicle is underinsured holding that the amount of coverage determines whether a vehicle is underinsured holding section 3877160 clearly limits the amount of coverage which may be stacked from policies on vehicles not involved in the accident to an amount no greater than the coverage of the vehicle involved in that accident