In Modesta v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 503 Pa. 437, 469 A.2d 1019 (1983) the plaintiff was injured when the bus in which she was riding was struck from behind by an uninsured motorist. the Supreme Court held that the requirement that Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) either purchase insurance or self-insure placed it in precisely the same position as a vehicle owner who has purchased a policy of liability insurance: both are required to maintain uninsured motorist coverage under the Act known as the Uninsured Motorists Act, Act of August 14, 1963, P.L. 909, as amended, 40 P.S. 2000. The Supreme Court quoted a statement that the purpose of the Uninsured Motorists Act is to afford financial recompense to persons who are injured through the negligence of motorists who are uninsured and not financially responsible and therefore cannot be made to satisfy a judgment and that the statute must be broadly and liberally construed to accomplish this purpose. See Johnson v. Concord Mut. Ins. Co., 450 Pa. 614, 300 A.2d 61 (1973). Uninsured Motorists Act provides in part: (a) No motor vehicle liability policy of insurance insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered . . . with respect to any motor vehicle registered . . . in this State, unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto . . . for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease. . . .