With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". basis that the policy excluded from the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle an uninsured vehicle and on the plain meaning of the statute applicable to un-derinsurance coverage which clearly referred to “the tortfeasor’s insurance coverage,” an indication that the coverages were mutually exclusive); Evenchik v. State Farm Ins. Co., 139 Ariz. 453, 458, 679 P.2d 99, 104 (1984) (rejecting plaintiffs argument that “since the uninsured motorist has zero coverage he is underinsured and the [underinsured] coverage kicks in on top of the uninsured limit to provide additional coverage” and noting that under the statute, when a negligent driver or owner has liability coverage, the vehicle is not uninsured); Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ferreira, 71 Haw. 341, 345, 790 P.2d 910, 913 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Berg, 359 N.W.2d at 729 (“The same motorist

A: 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
B: holding that the amount of coverage determines whether a vehicle is underinsured
C: holding that insurance policys exclusion of vehicles owned by furnished for or made available for the regular use of the named insured from the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle is valid
D: 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
D.