"[the injured insured is entitled to compensation from his underinsurer without regard to ... whether ... recovery exhausts any coverage provided by the liability insurers of the tortfeasor"). However, a significant minority of courts without statutory authority strictly uphold exhaustion clauses in UIM contracts, generally relying on freedom of contract principles. See, eg., Robinette v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 720 F.Supp. 577, 578, 580 (S.D.Miss.1989) (determining that injured insured's acceptance of $32,500 in a settlement did not exhaust the $50,000 liability policy as required by clear language in the UIM policy and finding no statutory authority for a credit scheme), aff'd, 896 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1990); Birchfield v. Nationwide Ins., 317 Ark. 38, 875 SW.2d 502, 503-04 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Lewis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 857
holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning holding contribution claim against attorney not contrary to illinois public policy holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth