I was reading this article on one court’s decision when confronted with a difficult-to-decipher policy term. Somewhat surprisingly, even though the judge said the provision was "nonsensical," an "absurdity," and "does not make sense," he found it unambiguously excluded all asbestos-caused diseases, not merely asbestosis. The words used in the exclusion were "exposure to or the contracting of asbestosis." I have seen courts find ambiguity on much, much less: some courts need about as much prompting to find ambiguity as I do to play chess against Shredder. In other words, not much prompting. Ambiguity is the great deus ex machina of coverage law: you never know when a judge will drop it from the sky and just end the whole shebang.
In any event, read the article, which is by Randy Maniloff and his colleague Jennifer Wojciechowski, a name which, I have on good authority, is sometimes shortened to J-Wo for ease of pronunciation.