This is how legal arguments work when actual money is at stake. If there's a non-insane point of view that says you could interpret a clause in either direction

This is how legal arguments work when actual money is at stake. If there's a non-insane point of view that says you could interpret a clause in either direction one side takes one position and the other side takes the other position. It's usually something similar to this, for example a policy with a clause saying we always cover if X and another clause saying we never cover if Y, when both X and Y are true. That kind of thing. My favorite example along these lines is the insurance for the World Trade Center disaster, which hinged on a question of if the 9/11 attacks were one event, or two, since of course it was two separate planes taking off at different airports piloted by different terrorists. No matter how much you plan ahead and try to use definitive language it's usually possible to end up in a spot where it's still a matter of debate. In this case it's a lot of discussion of proximate cause (the phrase "but for" is the tell there) which is a standard feature of insurance claim arguments after some sort of major loss. Typically what happens is each side assesses how close the other's argument is to compelling and then based on that both sides come to a settlement agreement.