In order to prevent double recovery, other provisions of
OPCF 44R reduce what the insurer must pay by any amounts
that are available to the claimant from or through the inadequately insured motorist.
 In this case, Mr. Hartley’s attempt to obtain compensation
from Minnesota for the entire damages he sustained was frustrated by the Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. §3.736. Subdivision 9
of this statute does provide that Minnesota will pay compensation for property loss and personal injury caused by a state
employee acting in the course of his or her employment.
But other subdivisions cap the amount of damages that can
 Specifically, there is a $500,000 cap under subdivision 4(c)
on the amount that can be claimed by an individual and a
$1,500,000 cap under subdivision 4(g) on the total that is payable “for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence”.
 The Minnesota Torts Claims Act goes on to provide in
subdivision 8 that state agencies “may procure insurance
against liability . . . for damages resulting from torts”, and that
procurement of insurance will be a “waiver of the limits of governmental liability . . . only to the extent that valid and collectible insurance . . . exceeds those limits”. Minnesota did not carry
additional liability insurance that would apply to Mr. Hartley’s
 Faced with these provisions, which are not uncommon in
the United States, Mr. Hartley entered into a settlement agree-
ment with Minnesota. The agreement provides:
The parties to this Settlement Agreement agree and acknowledge that the
amount paid to Plaintiff Glen Hartley and his counsel, ( i.e., [US]$500,000.00)
is the maximum amount Glen Hartley can recover against State Defendants
pursuant to Minnesota law, including Minn. Stat. §3.736.
 Mr. Hartley therefore contends that the motion judge did
not err in holding that Minnesota was underinsured within the
meaning of OPCF 44R since Mr. Hartley was legally entitled to
receive an amount under his policy above the amount available
to him from Minnesota.
 Security National has raised three bases for refusing
Mr. Hartley’s claim for the shortfall left after his settlement
 First, it argues that Minnesota is not underinsured, but
self-insured, and therefore underinsured coverage does not apply.
 Second, it urges that the shortfall in recovery is not the
result of underinsurance, but rather the result of a statutory