Wording contains both not-insured statements and maximum-amount tables. Each can restrict settlement, but in different ways. Comparing only numbers may conceal that an event falls outside the relevant arrangement entirely. Start by identifying the kind of provision you are reading.
A maximum does not establish cover
Consider a hypothetical vase in a category with a limit. The limit does not establish that every way of breaking the vase is insured. The event must first fall within the arrangement, after which valuation and limits can be examined.
Read the amount with its unit. Per object, collection and event are different concepts. Copying a number without those words is incomplete. Specific locations or events may introduce separate limits too.
Read exclusions substantively
The FBTO all-risk wording consulted lists matters including aging and wear under uninsured damage. This illustrates a substantive restriction, rather than an amount below which wear is automatically paid. Use your own variant and version.
Identify the sentence's scope: cause, object, activity or place? Read any exception to the exclusion too. Extracting not from one column without the rest of the row can change the meaning.
Describe actual facts before selecting a passage. Calling something damaged does not establish wear or a separate incident. Where cause is unknown, keep that question open.
Return unclear calculations to the wording
Ask which provision supports a refusal or restriction. Is the event outside cover, a limit reached, or an excess applied? These lead to different enquiries rather than all becoming a discount.
Keep the explanation with its article number. Otherwise, insured up to this amount may be remembered incorrectly as every loss below it being paid. A clear note preserves the distinction without predicting the insurer's outcome.
Where several rules interact, ask about the assessment sequence instead of constructing it from isolated figures. Aim to understand why a provision applies and the facts supporting that explanation. This keeps a coverage discussion separate from an argument over arithmetic that may not yet be relevant.
