In Engstrom v. MSI Ins. Co., 198 Wis. 2d 195, 203, 542 N.W.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1995), the Court recognized that where a tort-feasor was covered by two policies with different liability limits, the injured person was entitled to UIM coverage even though only one of the tort-feasor's policies had liability limits less than that of the injured person's UIM coverage. The Court acknowledged that our decision meant that had the tort-feasor been covered only by the policy with liability limits greater than the injured person's UIM coverage, the injured person could not have recovered UIM benefits. See id. Instead, because the tort-feasor had an additional policy with liability limits less than the UIM coverage, the injured person could recover UIM benefits. See id. The Court concluded that such a result was "required by the language of the policy." Id.