Carolina seems untenable and inconsistent with the stated policy that the statute is remedial and should be interpreted to provide the victim of a financially irresponsible motorist with the fullest possible protection. In Grimsley, our Supreme Court held that where a trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over an uninsured motorist, claims against the uninsured motorist insurance carrier, whose liability is only derivative, failed. Grimsley, 342 N.C. at 547-48, 467 S.E.2d at 95-96 (citing, inter alia, Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 285 N.C. 313, 319, 204 S.E.2d 829, 834 (1974) (“[p]lain-tiff’s right to recover against his intestate’s insurer under the uninsured motorist endorsement is derivative and conditional^”); Spivey v. Lowery, 116 N.C. App. 124, 126, 446 S.E.2d 835, 837 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 338 N.C. 312, 452 S.E.2d
holding that prospective buyer of used car could not recover under dealers uim endorsement because uim insurance is not for protection of vehicles but of persons holding plaintiffs uim claims did not accrue until his lawsuit against the underinsured driver was resolved where insurance policy provided for uim coverage only after liability policies had been exhausted holding that um carriers are subrogated to any substantive defense that the tortfeasor may have been able to assert against the insured holding that because plaintiff released the tortfeasor plaintiff may not assert a claim against the uim carrier because of the derivative nature of the uim carriers liability holding that neb rev stat  446413le reissue 2004 barring actions for um or uim coverage when insureds underlying claim against tortfeasor expires is inapplicable when insured timely files action against tortfeasor in that circumstance applicable statute of limitations on claim against insurer for um or uim benefits is statute governing actions on written contracts