The plaintiff, Insura Property and Casualty Company (Insura), appeals from an orderof the Madison County trial court ordering it to provide underinsured-vehicle coverage to aninsured who was injured while riding as a passenger on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) designedprimarily for off-road use. On appeal, Insura contends that the trial court erred in findingthat its policy provision excluding coverage for off-road vehicles was unenforceable underthe Illinois Insurance Code provision mandating underinsured-motorist coverage (215 ILCS5/143a-2(4) (West 2000)). We reverse.

On April 21, 2000, the defendant, Christina Steele, was injured when the ATV onwhich she was a passenger was involved in an accident. At the time, Steele was a namedinsured on an automobile insurance policy issued to her parents, Bruce and Judy Steele, byInsura. The policy provided, in relevant part:

"A. We will pay compensatory damages which an 'insured' is legally entitled torecover from the owner or operator of an 'underinsured motor vehicle' becauseof 'bodily injury':

C. 'Underinsured motor vehicle' means a land motor vehicle or trailer of any typeto which a bodily injury liability bond or policy applies at the time of theaccident, but its limit for bodily injury liability is less than the limit of liabilityfor this coverage.

However, 'underinsured motor vehicle' does not include any vehicle orequipment:

5. Designed mainly for use off public roads while not upon public roads."

There is no dispute that the ATV on which Steele was riding was designed primarily for off-road use and that it was, in fact, being used off public roads when the accident occurred.

On January 31, 2001, Steele filed a lawsuit against the driver of the ATV, DeannaTownzen. On April 12, 2002, Steele's attorney sent a letter to Insura informing it that Steelehad settled with Townzen's insurer for her policy limits of $20,000 and demanding theremainder of Steele's damages under the underinsured-vehicle coverage.

On June 21, 2002, Insura filed the instant declaratory judgment petition seeking adetermination that, by virtue of the above-quoted coverage exclusion, it did not have anobligation to provide underinsured-vehicle coverage to Steele. Steele argued to the trialcourt, as she does on appeal, that the exclusion in Insura's policy is unenforceable under theIllinois Insurance Code (Insurance Code) (215 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2000)). On July 15,2002, Insura filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings. On October 18, 2002, the trialcourt denied Insura's motion, entered a judgment in Steele's favor, and ordered Insura tohonor her claim. This appeal followed.

The facts are not in dispute, and the parties agree that the policy is unambiguous. Theonly question before us is whether section 143a-2(4) of the Insurance Code (215 ILCS5/143a-2(4) (West 2000)), which mandates underinsured-vehicle coverage, renders theprovision unenforceable. See 215 ILCS 5/442 (West 2000) (provisions of insurance policiespurporting to exclude coverage mandated by the Insurance Code are unenforceable). Because our determination centers on a question of statutory interpretation, our review is denovo. Land v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 202 Ill. 2d 414, 421, 781 N.E.2d 249,254 (2002).

Our primary goal in statutory construction is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. The best evidence of legislative intent may be found in the words of the statute itself. Land,202 Ill. 2d at 421, 781 N.E.2d at 254. Where a statute is unambiguous, its words must begiven their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to other tools of statutory construction. Land, 202 Ill. 2d at 421-22, 781 N.E.2d at 254.

The underinsured-motorist statute here at issue provides, in pertinent part:

"For the purpose of this Code[,] the term 'underinsured motor vehicle' meansa motor vehicle whose ownership, maintenance[,] or use has resulted in bodily injuryor death of the insured, as defined in the policy, and for which the sum of the limitsof liability *** is less than the limits for underinsured coverage provided the insuredas defined in the policy at the time of the accident. ***

*** [N]o policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by lawfor bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership,maintenance[,] or use of a motor vehicle shall be renewed or delivered or issued fordelivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle designed for use on publichighways and required to be registered in this State unless underinsured motoristcoverage is included in such policy ***." (Emphasis added.) 215 ILCS 5/143a-2(4)(West 2000).

We think it clear from both the plain language of the statute and the public policybehind it that it is meant only to require insurance for underinsured vehicles designed for andused on public roads. Steele cites Roberts v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 231 Ill. App.3d 713, 596 N.E.2d 185 (1992), in support of her contention to the contrary. There, aninsurance policy contained an uninsured-motorist provision with an exclusion for motorvehicles designed primarily for off-road use. The exclusion did not apply, however, if suchoff-road vehicles were being used on public roads. Roberts, 231 Ill. App. 3d at 715, 596N.E.2d at 185. The insureds' minor son was injured on an ATV. Roberts, 231 Ill. App. 3dat 715, 596 N.E.2d at 186. The statutory uninsured-motorist provision in effect at that timeprovided that no automobile insurance policy " 'shall be renewed or delivered or issued fordelivery in this State *** unless coverage is provided *** for the protection of personsinsured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators ofuninsured motor vehicles.' " Roberts, 231 Ill. App. 3d at 716, 596 N.E.2d at 186 (quotingIll. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 73, par. 755a(1)).

The court noted that the Insurance Code did not contain a definition of the term"motor vehicle" and that, therefore, the definition of that term found in the Illinois VehicleCode (Vehicle Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 95