Appellant was covered by Criterion Insurance Company under an uninsured motorist policy.1 Appellant was a passenger in a taxicab which was hit by an uninsured motorist. The taxicab was insured. Appellant and Criterion entered into arbitration and appellant was awarded $1,868 as compensation for her damages resulting from the accident. Appellant, who was at all times represented by counsel, signed a “release and trust agreement” with Criterion containing a “payback” clause in which she agreed to pay to Criterion any monies she received from a settlement made with anyone involved in the accident, up to the amount of $1,868.2 Appellant subsequently recovered $1,200 from the insured taxi*96cab, paying nothing to Criterion. Criterion sued appellant for breach of the agreement, and was granted summary judgment of $1,200.

Appellant argues that the “payback” clause is void as against public policy, citing cases from other jurisdictions so holding. However, those cases are generally distinguishable; e.g., the insured was unable to obtain full recovery under the terms of the uninsured motorist policy coverage3 or the clause was deemed violative of an existing mandatory uninsured motorist policy statute.4 Neither is true here. There is no indication that the arbitration award was constricted by any policy limit and at the relevant time no mandatory uninsured motorist statute existed in the District. In this jurisdiction, “courts will invalidate contract terms that are contrary to public policy only in the clearest of cases and with great caution.” Moore v. Jones, 542 A.2d 1253, 1255 (D.C. 1988) (citation omitted). See, e.g., Leatherman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 52 Wis.2d 644, 190 N.W.2d 904 (1971) (sustaining clause as against public policy attack in absence of statute).

Appellant also argues that the agreement was void for lack of consideration. We disagree. The agreement was made in satisfaction of a disputed claim after arbitration without further appeal to the courts as allowed by D.C.Code §§ 16-4311, -4312 (1981).5 “Voluntary settlement of civil controversies is in high judicial favor.” Moore v. Jones, 542 A.2d 1253, 1255 (D.C. 1988), quoting Autera v. Robinson, 136 U.S.App. D.C. 216, 218, 419 F.2d 1197, 1199 (1969).

AFFIRMED.