the injured party do not qualify as bodily injury liability insurance so as to satisfy the policy definition of underin-sured motor vehicle. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Beavers, 321 Ark. 292, 297, 901 S.W.2d 13, 16 (1995) (stating, “[i]n short, the statute is clear that under-insured motorist coverage is triggered when the tortfeasor’s insurance, not that of the insured, is less than the amount of damages incurred by the insured” (empha sis added)); State Farm, Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, 54 Ark.App. 390, 391, 926 S.W.2d 850, 851 (1996) (stating that the Arkansas “statute implies that underin-sured coverage is not triggered unless the tortfeasor has insurance in the first instance” (emphasis added)); Berg v. W. Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 359 N.W.2d 726, 729 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ position, the
holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy holding that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage 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 holding that in order for insured to qualify for uim benefits there must have been a liability policy in effect um coverage does not satisfy this requirement 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