OPINION OF THE COURT
In our opinion in
West American Ins. Co. v. Park,
In this case, however, an additional issue is raised, and we are called upon to predict whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would rule invalid, as contrary to the public policy embodied in the MVFRL, an insurance contract clause providing for the set-off or reduction of underinsured motorist coverage benefits “by all sums paid ... by or on behalf of persons or organizations who may be legally responsible.” This issue cannot be decided on the estoppel rationale adopted in
Park,
as here North River obviously does not seek to contradict its policy. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court determined that Supreme Cоurt of Pennsylvania would so rule and entered judgment for Tabor’s estate.
North River Ins. Co. v. Tabor,
I.
Factual Background and Contentions of the Parties
The district court’s concise recitation of the undisputed facts in this case is as follows:
Defendant James E. Tabor is the administrator for the estate of Todd J. Tabor who was killed in an automobile accident. Aetna Life & Casualty Company insured the host vehicle in which the decedent, who was a passenger, was killed. That company paid to the estate $250,000 in liability coverage. The Tabors have a personal automobile policy [with North River Insurance Company] which provides coverage for three vehicles owned by them and $100,000 of underinsured motorist coverage for [each vehicle] per accident with bodily injury....
“The policy in question contains an express offset provision entitling [North River] to reduce the underinsured motorist benefits owing under its own policy by the liability coverage amounts alrеady paid by other companies, in this case Aetna.” Id. at 627.
As Tabor’s estate is under Park entitled to stack the underinsured motorist coverage on the three Tabor vehicles to achieve a total of $300,000 coverage from North River, and as Tabor’s estate has already received $250,000 from Aetna, the question of set-off arises. Tabor’s estate claims that the set-off clause is unenforceablе as contrary to public policy and accordingly the additional $300,000 in stacked coverage is available to satisfy its remaining damages which it asserts are at least $300,000. North River, however, argues that, pursuant to its contract with the Tabors, the $250,000 received from Aetna must be set-off against the $300,000 in stacked underin-sured motorist coverage, so that its liability to Tabor’s estate for underinsurеd benefits cannot exceed $50,000. 2 Under the view *464 held by Tabor’s estate, the combination of the tortfeasor’s liability coverage with Aet-na and the Tabors’ underinsurance coverage will satisfy $550,000 of the damages it claims; North River’s view, since we are allowing stacking, potentially leaves $250,-000 of these damages unsatisfied. For the reasons that follow, we find the North River position untenable under thе MVFRL.
As noted by Judge Smith in
Conrad v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
48 Pa. D.
&
C.3d 71, there are two types of underinsured motorist coverage. Under the first the coverage places the insured party in the same position that he would have been in had the tortfeasor carried liability insurance in the amount of the insured’s under-insured motorist policy limit.
See Higgins v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,
Under the second view, underinsured motorist coverage supplies a fund for full compensation to the injured insured and thus the insured is entitled to compensation from his insurer regаrdless of any recovery obtained from other sources. The insured may therefore recover underinsured motorist benefits until his policy limits are reached or he is fully compensated for his damages, whichever comes first.
See Hamilton v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington,
Under 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1731(a) (Purdon Supp. March 1990), every insurance policy issued in Pennsylvania must include “underinsured motorist coverage” unless it is rejected by the insured. Section 1731(c) defines “underinsured motorist coverage” so as to make clear that an insurer must provide cоverage for all “persons who suffer injury ... and are legally entitled to recover damages therefore from owners or operators of underinsured motor vehicles.” Since section 1702 of the MVFRL defines any “underinsured motor vehicle” as any “motor vehicle for which the limits of available liability insurance ... are insufficient to pay losses and damages,” it follows that insurers must providе protection for all persons injured by a motor vehicle having less liability insurance than the loss and damages sustained. This would include, for example, a person who has purchased for herself $100,000 per person in underinsured motorist coverage and who suffers a $300,000 loss at the hands of a driver who has purchased $100,000 liability coverage. If an insurer were entitled to include a set-оff provision such as that in the North River policy, a person so injured would have no underinsured motorist protection, a result clearly inconsistent with the statutory text. For this reason, we read the statute as reflecting a legislative choice in favor of “excess” underinsured motorist protection.
As the court in Conrad noted: “The legislative mandate to insurance carriers issuing motor vehicle insurаnce policies in Pennsylvania was to provide coverage to insureds for those cases when third party liability limits were inadequate or not enough to satisfy an injured parties’ [sic] losses,” and “[a] determination of inadequacy can only be made by reference to the injured party’s losses and damages.” 48 Pa. D. & C.3d at 79-80. A set-off provision *465 preventing Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme from having its desired effect — i.e., tо require insurers to provide underinsured motorist coverage in excess to the tort-feasor’s liability coverage — is therefore contrary to public policy and unenforceable.
Moreover, under the MVFRL as applicable to this case, as opposed to prior Pennsylvania law, insurers are
required
to offer underinsured coverage of at least $15,000 per person, $30,000 per аccident.
See
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 1702, 1715(c), 1731(a) (Purdon Supp.1990). This alone distinguishes the pre-MVFRL cases upholding set-off provisions with regard to underinsu-rance coverage, as in those cases the issue was one merely of construing a contract.
See, e.g. Kovaleski v. Erie Ins. Group,
The North River policy in this case also purports to define “underinsured motor vehicle” using the “gap” theory.
4
But now, of course, the situation has changed. Under the MVFRL, insurers
must
offer underinsured motorist coverage, and that coverage
is
controlled by statute
and
by a public policy meant to foster the fullest possible, or “excess,” coverage. The pre-MVFRL cases, then, are inapposite, and insurers may not by contract convert Pennsylvania’s broad statutory scheme for underinsured motorist coverage into a nar
*466
row one merely providing “gap” coverage. North River’s attempt to do this through its off-set prоvision and its definition of “underinsured motorist vehicle” is therefore unavailing. Indeed, the Superior Court in
Davis v. Erie Ins. Group,
We also observe that our determination is bolstered by reference to the policies and the rationales behind stacking. Throughout the several programs adopted by Pennsylvania for automobile insurance its courts have consistently seen a legislative intent to provide for the fullest coverage possible for injured insureds, not in excess of their damages, — and this intent has extended into the current MVFRL era,
see Tollman v. Aetna Ca. & Sur. Co.,
The other main reason cited by the Pennsylvania courts in striking down anti-stacking provisions is protection of the reasonable expectations of the insured. This reflects the concept that the insured, having paid multiple premiums, is entitled reasonably to believe that he has multiple cover
age
— e.g., having paid for a total of $300,-000 worth of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage ($100,000 on each of three vehicles), the insured is entitled to $300,000 worth of coverage.
See, e.g., Williams,
Finally, even if the result we reach here were not mandated by statute, the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of
Bateman v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.,
—
*467
Pa. -,
Any amounts otherwise payable for damages under this coverage shall be reduced by all sums:
1. Paid because of the bodily injury by or on behalf of persons or organizations who may be responsible.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the determination of the Superiоr Court. The court held that the set-off clause was ambiguous and, construing it against the insurer, found that Bateman’s estate was entitled to the $50,000 worth of underin-sured motorist coverage provided by the policy:
Appellee, the drafter of this policy, argues that the phrase ‘Any amounts otherwise payable for damages under this . coverage ... ’ refers to the limits of liability of its policy sо that any sums that Appellant recovers from other persons reduces the amount available to Appellant under the under-insurance provision. Since Appellant recovered at least $50,-000.00 from other parties, the limits of underinsurance coverage must be reduced tó zero and her claim for under-insurance rejected.
Appellee, however, neglects to take into account the word ‘otherwise’ which has been inserted into the policy and its effect upon the meaning of this phrase. The word ‘otherwise’ is defined as ‘in a different way or manner’ and-when inserted into this phrase reads, ‘Any amounts payable in a different way or manner for damages under this coverage ...’. The problem generated by this word when placed in-this phrasе is that under this policy the only damages payable are for under-insurance payments and there are no other payments payable in a different way or manner which are to be reduced by sums paid by others. Thus, the inclusion into this phrase of the word ‘otherwise’ makes Appellee’s interpretation that the clause refers to its under-insurance limits of liability an impossible one and renders the language ambiguous.
Appellant, on the other hand, argues that the damages otherwise payable referred to are her decedent’s total damages sustained (stipulated to be in excess of $128,334) minus the $78,334 recovered from other parties which must be deducted from her damages leaving $50,000 as damages which Appellee as under-insurer must pay.
Since thе provision of the policy is ambiguous it must be construed as Appellant suggests.
— Pa. at-,
Thus, following Bateman, when we interpret the phrase “amounts otherwise *468 payable for damages payable under this coverage” to mean Tabor’s estate’s total damages claimed to exceed $550,000, and reducing that amount by $250,000 — i.e., by the “sums ... [p]aid ... on behalf of persons ... who may be legally responsible” — , we find North River is liable to Tabor’s estate for up to $300,000 underin-sured motorist сoverage, not to exceed actual damages.
Conclusion
Per
West American Ins. Co. v. Park,
Notes
. Section 1736 deals with both uninsured and underinsured coverage.
. North River, of course, urges that stacking is not рermitted but we reject that contention. It argues, however, that if stacking is allowed its *464 maximum exposure would be $50,000, i.e., three times $100,000 or $300,000 less $250,000 paid by Aetna.
. In approving set-off provisions (and anti-stacking provisions with regard to underinsurance coverage), these pre-MVFRL cases made note of the fact that Pennsylvania law did not require insurers to offer underinsured motorist coverage.
See Kovaleski,
. The policy provides:
‘Underinsured Motor Vehicle’ means a land motor vehicle or trailer of any type to which a ‘bodily injury’ liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident but its limit for 'bodily injury liability’ is less than the limit of liability for this [policy’s underinsurance] coverage.
. It must be said, however, that even aside from the circumstance that
Davis
is not a Supreme Court decision, it is not completely controlling as the $15,000 in underinsured coverage was the statutory minimum. Indeed, North River, citing
Woglemuth v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.,
. We therefore reject the approach taken by Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hampton, 1990 WESTLAW 87276 (U.S.D.C., E.D.Pa. June 18, 1990), which approved a set-off provision to the extent that it did not reduce underinsured motorist coverage below the statutory floor. This approach has not been taken by the Pennsylvania courts in the stacking cases where the court has struck down anti-stacking provisions which, in the particular cases being considеred, did not affect the minimum coverage required by law. Neither is this approach consistent with the primary basis for our determination here, i.e., Pennsylvania’s legislative program of "excess" underinsured motorist coverage.
. The virtually identical set-off clause in the uninsured/underinsured portion of the policy in this case reads:
B. Any amounts otherwise payable for damages under this coverage shall be reduced by all sums:
1. Paid because of the 'bodily injury' by or on behalf of persons or organizations who may be legally responsible.