concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. In my view, stated in dissent in Millikan v. USF. & G. (1993) Ind.App., 619 N.E.2d 948, the 1987 amendments to IC 27-t-5-2, 4 & 5 required insurers to provide underinsured motorist coverage as required therein as and when policies came up for renewal after January 1, 1988. Thus, whether the policy before us was ambiguous is beside the point. At the time of Braden's injury in 1990, American States was required to provide him with underin-sured motorist's coverage since he was *1259clearly an insured for purposes of delivering the van. ‘