an offer of UIM coverage to McDonald was required under Section 38-77-160. Id. at 125, 518 S.E.2d at 626 (citing Ackerman v. Travelers Indem. Co., 318 S.C. 137, 456 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.1995)). In this case, our legislature has not defined the circumstances constituting a “change” in coverage, but the plain language of section 38-77-350(0) leads us to the ineluctable conclusion that the addition of extra vehicles to an existing insurance policy does not require an additional offer of UIM coverage where the insurer has previously made a proper offer to the insured. Other Jurisdictions We are aware of some divergence of opinion in other jurisdictions considering this issue. Compare Makela v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 147 Ill.App.3d 38, 100 Ill.Dec. 505, 497 N.E.2d 483 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Pierce v. Allstate Ins. Co., 316 Or. 31, 848
holding in a case involving a multiplevehicle policy that a new offer of uninsured motorist coverage was not required for the addition of a new vehicle which was comparable to the renewal or supplementation of an existing policy events that did not trigger the statutory requirement of a new offer the courts holding was based in part upon the principle that an insurance contract is personal to the insured because it insures the risk of loss to the insured and does not attach to specific vehicles holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy holding that an amendment to a policy in existence prior to the effective date of a statute requiring uninsured motorist coverage which substituted insured automobiles did not incorporate the new statute because to do so would be an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation of the contract holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth