We granted certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals holding invalid, as against public policy, a provision in an automobile insurance policy purporting to limit the portability of basic uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Erwood, 364 S.C. 1, 611 S.E.2d 319 (Ct.App. 2005). We affirm.
FACTS
Erwood was a passenger on an uninsured motorcycle owned and driven by her husband when he had an accident. Er-wood’s husband was at-fault in the accident. • Erwood owned an automobile insured by Nationwide under a policy providing $15,000 in UM coverage. She sought to recover under the UM provision of her Nationwide policy, but Nationwide denied her claim.
Nationwide brought this declaratory judgment action, and the circuit court granted it summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, citing Burgess v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 361 S.C. 196, 603 S.E.2d 861 (Ct.App.2004) reversed Op. No. 26304 (S.C. Sup.Ct. filed April 9, 2007). Although we do not find Burgess, which concerned a policy limitation on the portability of underinsured (UIM) coverage, controls this case, we affirm the result reached by the Court of Appeals here.
ISSUE
Whether an automobile insurance policy limiting basic UM coverage is void as against public policy?
ANALYSIS
Erwood was injured while a passenger on an uninsured motorcycle owned by her spouse. Nationwide relied upon this policy provision to deny Erwood’s claim:
3. If a vehicle owned by you or a relative is involved in an accident where you or a relative sustains bodily injury or property damage, this policy shall:
a) be primary if the involved vehicle is your auto described on this policy; or
*91b) be -excess if the involved vehicle is not your auto described on this policy. The amount of coverage applicable under this policy shall be the lesser of the coverage limits under this policy or the coverage limits on the vehicle involved in the accident,
(emphasis supplied).
The Court of Appeals held, as it had in Burgess, that UM coverage is “personal and portable,” that is, it follows the insured and not the vehicle. We agree. See e.g., Hogan v. Home Ins. Co., 260 S.C. 157, 162, 194 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1973) (“unlike the provisions relative to liability coverage, the statute plainly affords uninsured motorist coverage to the named insured and resident relatives of his or her household at all times and without regard to the activity in which they were engaged at the time. Such coverage is nqwhere limited by the statute to the use of the insured vehicle”).
The court also held that S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (2002) does not permit an automobile insurance company to exclude or restrict basic UM coverage. Unlike the Court of Appeals, however, we conclude that the controlling statute is not § 38-77-160, which covers stacking claims,1 but rather the statute referred to in Hogan, which is now found at S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-150 (Supp.2002). Section 38-77-150 mandates UM coverage in all automobile insurance policies. We find that the mandatory nature of this coverage distinguishes it from the voluntary UIM coverage at issue in Burgess, and that public policy requires that basic UM coverage be afforded to Erwood even when she is a passenger on her spouse’s uninsured motorcycle.2 Compare State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Calcutt, 340 S.C. 231, 530 S.E.2d 896 (Ct.App.2000) (insurance policy endorsement providing for set-off of worker’s *92compensation benefits for UIM valid where UM set-off is not, because UIM coverage is voluntary).
CONCLUSION
We affirm, as modified, the Court of Appeals’ decision holding that Erwood is entitled to collect basic UM benefits under her Nationwide policy.
Affirmed as Modified.
MOORE and WALLER, JJ., concur. TOAL, C.J., and BURNETT, J., dissenting in separate opinions.. Since Erwood is not seeking to stack insurance coverage, we are not concerned by her status as a Class I insured.
. We do not decide whether basic UM coverage is universal, such that the owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident would be entitled _ to basic UM coverage from an at-home vehicle. We are troubled by the thought that a person operating a vehicle without insurance in violation of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act would be allowed to collect benefits from the insurer of another of the owner/operator's vehicles.