W/r/t insurance:
During my decades in Supreme Court, I spent many humorous hours reading the most recent Appellate decisions (where you go when the State Supreme Court is wrong). A large percentage of these share a concept: the 2 parties who signed the contract had very different opinions as to what they were required to do, etc. It is the insurance company's legal fiduciary duty to deny all claims. Yes, really - until or unless the Judge or jury makes them. The default position is OMDB..

The author of a good contract (I sold some with [insert Party 3 here] fields for DIY legal separations, child support mods, waivers, releases, renouncement of surviving spouse's right to elect against the decedent's will) earns his fee from Part 1 by crafting language that appears to grant concessions to Party 2 - but:
1. does not
2. requires impossible standard of proof
3. waives or delays performance as to Party 1

If anyone ere believes that there is some form of "Court of Last Resort", whose intellectual brilliance and ultimate competence can and does correct any & all outrages, insults, etc?
Explain "Kelo", "Citizens United", "Roe v. Wade", "Batson", and "Dual Sovereignty".

Waiting for the penny to drop: the NY "look back provision".

Let me summarize: in motion practice, any form of moral rectitude, consciousness of error, etc. are fatal handicaps.