In Estate of Swartz v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Co., Ky. App., 949 S.W.2d 72 (1997), the Court held that stacking was permitted when what appeared to be "policy-based" UIM coverage was in fact per- car coverage. In Swartz the premiums were significantly different if a policyholder had one car as opposed to multiple cars. The Court concluded that since Swartz had in fact paid for two units of UIM coverage, Swartz was entitled to stack that coverage. However, we noted that "an insurance company could, through the calculation and adoption of an actuarially appropriate premium, charge an insured a single UIM fee regardless of the number of vehicles covered under the policy, entitling that insured to only one unit of UIM protection." Id. at 77.