The Legislature Intended That Underinsured Motorist Coverage Should be Offered and Explained so that the Insured had a Right to Elect or Reject Such Coverage: In Cloninger v. National General Insurance Co., 109 Ill. 2d 419, 94 Ill. Dec. 549, 488 N.E.2d 548 (1985), the supreme court synthesized the long-standing purpose behind underinsured motorist coverage with the Tucker court's determination that the legislature intended that all insureds should be given the opportunity to intelligently elect or reject excess uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. After noting the legislature's concern that injured parties be adequately compensated, the Cloninger court stated: "The legislature not only required that underinsured-motorist coverage be offered but also provided that the insured had a right to elect or reject such coverage. The right to elect or reject such coverage requires that the insured have information regarding the coverage. Therefore, we believe that the legislature intended that the 'offer' mandated in section 143a-2(3) provide the insured with enough information regarding underinsured-motorist coverage to allow the insured to make an intelligent decision of whether such coverage should be elected or rejected. Such an intelligent decision cannot be made unless an explanation of the coverage is supplied. Cloninger, 109 Ill. 2d at 424-25.