a tortfea-sor simply because the insured neglected to obtain written consent from the insurer violates the public policy behind our No-Fault Act and erects unnecessary barriers to the insured’s recovery of UIM benefits.” Malmin, 552 N.W.2d at 728. Depositors contends, and the court of appeals agreed, that the rationale of Mal-min does not apply here because this case involves UM benefits, and unlike UIM cases, there is no forced duplication of litigation in UM cases. In UIM cases, the tortfeasor is not considered an underin-sured motorist unless liability and damages in excess of the tortfeasor’s liability coverage are established. This generally requires the injured insured to first sue the underinsured motorist. See Employers Mut. Cos. v. Nordstrom, 495 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Minn.1993) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, an insured can establish
holding that  27721 contains a requirement that the insured prove that an alleged third party tortfeasor is in fact an owner or operator of an uninsured underinsured or hit and run motor vehicle    as a condition precedent to the recovery of uim benefits holding that recovery from the tortfeasors insurer is a condition precedent to a claim for uim benefits holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation holding that payments from a tortfeasors insurer are not from a collateral source because they stem directly from the tortfeasor holding nearly identical exclusion of  any claim  unambiguously operates to bar recovery of uim benefits under policy when driver is excluded