damages under his own policy’s underinsured motorist coverage); Beausoleil v. Canadian General Insurance Co. (1992),
8 O.R. (3d) 754,  O.J. No. 954 (C.A.), leave to appeal to
S.C.C. refused (1993), 11 O.R. (3d) xiv,  1 S.C.R. x, 
S.C.C.A. No. 367 (statutory limit on state liability in Massachusetts — recovery by claimant of damages under his own policy’s
underinsured motorist coverage); Somersall v. Friedman, 
O.J. No. 401, 183 D.L.R. (4th) 396 (C.A.), affd  3 S.C.R.
109,  S.C.J. No. 60, 2002 SCC 59 (settlement agreement
compromising claim against tortfeasor voluntarily entered into
— recovery by claimant of shortfall under his own policy’s underinsured motorist coverage).
 Second, Cronk J.A. held that, properly characterized, the
Florida statute did not make Florida immune from liability, nor
did it bar a right of action, or prevent Florida from being sued
and from having damages claimed and proved against it. What
the statute did was limit the amount of compensable damages
that Florida would be required to pay.
 Not surprisingly, given its terms, this is how the Minnesota
scheme has been interpreted in Minnesota. For example, in
Ronning v. Citizen Sec. Mut. Ins. Co., 557 N.W (2d) 363 (Minn.,
C.A. 1996), the Court of Appeal for Minnesota rejected the
argument that a claimant was only “legally entitled to recover”
an amount up to the statutory ceiling. The court held, at p. 366,
that the statute
affords limited immunity, as it does not prohibit a party from bringing an
action and obtaining judgment against a tortfeasor as does absolute immun-
ity. Thus, the immunity defence under [the statute is] not absolute within
the meaning of the term “legally entitled to recover”.
 The kind of limited immunity created by Minnesota’s
Torts Claim Act does not, therefore, prevent the legal entitlement to recover under OPCF 44R. In fact, the damage limitation
imposed by Minnesota’s Torts Claim Act impedes the ability to
recover fully against the tortfeasor, thereby triggering the call on
the “inadequately insured motorist” coverage.
 The fact that Minnesota’s Tort Claims Act provides a partial statutory immunity, capping the amount of damages recoverable from the state, is therefore no answer to Mr. Hartley’s
(c) Is Minnesota underinsured relative to OPCF 44R’s
 Facially, Mr. Hartley’s maximum coverage under his
policy with Security National, pursuant to the OPCF 44R