The plaintiff argues that this provision mandates mutuality of both monetary and territorial coverage as between general liability and uninsured motorist insurance. Thus the provision is triggered by an insured's decision to purchase insurance with monetary limits in excess of the statutory minimum. Accordingly, we do not interpret the statute to encompass any more than it plainly says. U.S. Automobile Assoc. Cabuzzi was decided under an earlier version of the statute which did not include the elective coverage provision, and we rely on that decision here only to the extent that it clarified the territorial scope of mandatory minimum uninsured motorist coverage under New Hampshire law.
Several cases cited by the plaintiff are also unhelpful.
See Descoteaux v. Liberty Mut. Like Cabuzzi , these cases interpreted the statute as it existed prior to the addition of the elective coverage provision. The claimant in Raudonis was not insured under general liability coverage, and thus the statute did not operate to extend uninsured motorist coverage to her. We decline to do so. We decline to apply the dictum in Raudonis to the factual context of the present case.