The purpose of the UIM statute "'is to provide the same insurance protection to the insured party who is injured by the uninsured or unknown motorist that would have been available to him had he been injured as a result of the negligence of a motorist covered by the minimum amount of liability insurance.'" Kremer v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 501 N.W.2d 765, 768 (SD 1993) (quoting Clark v. Regent Ins. Co., 270 N.W.2d 26, 29 (SD 1978)). "Insureds generally are allowed to receive recovery under more than one coverage as long as they do not receive more than the amount of their loss." Couch on Insurance 3d 169:6 (1998) (citing Saxe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 955 S.W.2d 188 (KyCtApp 1997)). The Connecticut Superior Court once noted, Loika v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 44 Conn. Supp. 59, 667 A.2d 1308, 1314 (ConnSuper 1995) (quoting Rydingsword v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 8, 615 A.2d 1032, 1037 (Conn 1992).