DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
The determination as to whether a vehicle is underinsured is made by comparing the bodily injury limits of the claimant's insurance policy with the bodily injury limits of the tortfeasor's policy ( see, Insurance Law § 3420[f][2][A]; Maurizzio v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 73 N.Y.2d 951, 953; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roth, 206 A.D.2d 376; Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Co. v. Szeli, 83 N.Y.2d 681; Matter of Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford Conn. v. Stillway, 165 A.D.2d 572; Matter of Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Freda, 156 A.D.2d 364, 365). If the bodily injury limits of the tortfeasor's policy are less than those of the claimant's policy, the claimant may assert a claim for underinsurance benefits ( see, Maurizzio v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., supra; Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Co. v. Szeli, supra).
The appellant claimant had supplementary uninsured motorist coverage under two primary policies. The policy with the limit of $100,000 exceeded the tortfeasor's policy limit of $25,000. Therefore, the tortfeasor's vehicle was underinsured. Since there was no applicable policy exclusion, the petition to permanently stay arbitration should have been denied.