to ‘afford!] insurers some financial protection’ from unwarranted claims.” Ladouceur v. Hanover Insurance Co., 682 A.2d 467, 470 (R.I.1996) (quoting Arnica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Streicker, 583 A.2d 550, 553 (R.I.1990)). Pursuant to § 27-7-2.1(e), an insured claimant can recover for property damage under the UIM coverage provisions in the policy when the claimant has provided the UIM insurer with “the name, address, and other means of identification to establish that the at-fault operator is without insurance.” In imposing such a limitation, the Legislature has determined that an insured may not recover under a UIM property-damage claim involving a hit-or-run driver unless the insured provides the UIM insurer with the identity of the tort-feasor. See also Ladouceur, 682 A.2d at 469 (<HOLDING>). Although such a requirement makes it more
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 language requiring insurer to pay all sums which the insured  shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile includes recovery of exemplary damages under uninsured motorist provision of policy holding that recovery from the tortfeasors insurer is a condition precedent to a claim for uim benefits holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute 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