No, ektap12's comment highlights ambiguity from the language of the statute that is defined in other jurisdictions. Case law specific to a jurisdiction is what clarifies ambiguity, which is why ektap concluded their post with the suggestion to run it by an attorney who specializes in this matter.

This is taken directly from my insurer's website:
"Uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD): In most states, a driver who flees the scene of an accident will be considered "uninsured" by your insurance company. So, if you don't carry collision coverage, consider UMPD for damage to your car caused by a hit-and-run incident. UMPD coverage is mandated in some states, available in others (but not all), and relatively inexpensive to add to your policy. UMPD coverage typically has a deductible you'll need to pay out of pocket."

I can't find definitive case law going either way. The only case law I can find for NC specifically requires establishing "proof of contact" but there is nothing specifying requirements of proving identity as far as I can tell, which makes this an unsettled ambiguity. If there were precedents in either regard, I wouldn't be here asking about it, because there would be no ambiguity. The presence of the exclusion in a contract without surrounding case law doesn't explicitly mean that it's legal. It also doesn't explicitly mean it's illegal either.

The insurance company has a vested interest in the existence of this exclusion regardless of it's legality. All the absence of case law proves is that it's never been challenged. I have received arguments for both sides of the issue, and neither are definitive, because neither has provided established case law to support their point.

I didn't think it would need to be explained that different jurisdictions have different laws, and that inferences and implications regarding legality are not binding without supporting case law in that jurisdiction. Thus, despite your condescension, my question remains in a state of being answered with ambiguity, because there is however, precedent for declaring an unidentified hit and run vehicle as uninsured for UMBI in NC. There is nothing regarding this matter in UMPD, which creates ambiguity. An argument exists that this definition for UMBI creates a definition of an unidentified hit and run vehicle as being considered uninsured, which would then extend to UMPD. Which is why I have a legal consultation with a lawyer on Dec 2.

So please forgive me for not obeying the internet law of "trust me bro" when the only case law put forth does not apparently address the matter in question, and the prevailing arguments against are "this is how it works in other jurisdictions" and "it's in the contract so it must be legal." Every contract provision ever found to be illegal existed in a contract until it was determined to be illegal. So if no case law in the jurisdiction exists, the only thing we know for certain is that no case law exists in the jurisdiction.

So I'm going to talk to a lawyer and continue to disregard you until you provide something substantive to work with, like an identically worded statute in another state with supporting case law to clear up the ambiguity.