It’s interesting that insurance Co didn’t point to an absence of proper inclusion clause. They tried to find exclusions that may help them to pull the fast one on a customer.
Which means the policy wording clearly matched the covered event.
The insurance company’s argument is “When we gave your lawyers a bespoke contract that said ‘Irrespective of whether a loss would otherwise be covered or not, we will not pay any claim which...’, what precisely did you think we meant?”
They quote the language in the policy and quote the national security apparatus as having made a determination that this was hostile action by a foreign government or their affiliates. Contractual disputes are often substantially less well-grounded in assertable facts than this one.
Which means the policy wording clearly matched the covered event.