"1. Fire or lightning"
OK, simple enough. Right? One would think -- until one turns to the very next page titled "Losses Not Insured" and reads the following regarding "nuclear hazards":
"Loss caused by the nuclear hazard shall not be considered loss caused by fire, explosion or smoke.
However, we do insure for any direct loss by fire resulting from the nuclear hazard, provided the resulting fire loss is itself a Loss Insured."
My initial involuntary reaction was: "huh?", followed by the quickly growing realization of "WHAT THE F*-K IS THIS?!?"
What it is is a shameless, unconscionable, blatant tactic that allows the company to "rightfully" decide that they don't feel like compensating you for a particular loss.