hazardous substances, and vehicles that carry passengers for hire. Therefore, it appears that UM coverage for passenger-carrying vehicles attaches to the vehicles, just as liability insurance for all three types of vehicles attaches to the vehicles. If so, UM coverage for passenger-carrying vehicles would protect anyone in the vehicle, including the driver. To the extent that this interpretation conflicts with A.R.S. section 20-259.01 (Supp. 1998), which makes uninsured coverage for insureds optional, and in light of longstanding public policy to protect victims from financially irresponsible drivers, we liberally construe section 28-4033(A)(2) to include drivers within the protected class of victims. See, e.g., Lowing v. Allstate Ins. Co., 176 Ariz. 101, 104, 859 P.2d 724, 727 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Employers Mut. Cos. Co. v. McKeon, 159 Ariz.
holding that the social security act is remedial and needs to be construed liberally holding that coas should be construed liberally recognizing that umuim statute is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed holding that umuim coverage is to be construed liberally to give full effect to the public policy which led to its enactment holding that under edenfield the act should be liberally construed