from UIM insurers are void as contrary to public policy); Shaw v. Continental Ins. Co., 108 Nev. 928, 840 P.2d 592, 594 (1992) (noting that underinsured endorsement carriers usually will not be prejudiced if they receive a credit for the full limits of the tortfeasor's liability policy); Mann v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 108 Nev. 648, 836 P.2d 620, 621 (1992) (noting that insureds may have valid reasons for accepting a léss-than-lim-its settlement and requiring them to exhaust policy limits would increase litigation costs and promote delay); Hamilton v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 107 Wash.2d 721, 733 P.2d 213, 216 (1987) (en banc) (explaining t W.2d 465, 467-68 (Mo.App.1993) (enforcing UIM policy exhaustion clauses as written); Ploen v. Union Ins. Co., 253 Neb. 867, 573 NW.2d 436, 443 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Castle v. Williamson, 192 W.Va. 641, 453
holding that should is a preferential rather than mandatory word and that contract provision stating that parties should settle disputes in a particular forum was not a mandatory selection clause holding that the interests of two insurance companies were adverse under wis stat  102231a 19891990 relating to workers compensation when the respective liability of the two insurance companies depends on the determination of the date of injury holding that tjhere is no question that parties to a contract may agree to limit their respective remedies and that those remedies need not be the same if the contract provision is reasonable holding that a law which regulates what terms insurance companies can place in their policies regulates insurance companies holding that insurance companies may limit their own liability through freedom of contract although exhaustion clauses may encourage parties to litigate rather than settle such decisions were better left to the legislature