Less-than-Careful insuring language => no summary judgment

I pass along this case because it's a little interesting. 

A person with an accidental-death insurance policy, which purports to cover him for accidental deaths, but not for lingering diseases, gets west nile virus and dies. Seems pretty accidental, no? Should be easy. 

But the policy has narrower language than all that. It requires either drowning or 'a visible contusion or wound,' Furthermore, the policyholder was morbidly obese, with diabetes, and the policy requires that the sudden / accidental death be the 'sole cause' of death. Finally, the policy expressly excludes disease. 

So it isn't a huge surprise that the district court granted summary judgment for the insurer. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the insurer's position would render coverage illusory. The better reading, the Court held, is that a mosquito bite + west nile is amply sudden and accidental. A bite is also a wound or a contusion. Sure, but what about the exclusion of disease? Isn't WNE a disease? Yes it is, says the Fifth Circuit, but that's not enough: the Court says "yes, but that's only for disease existing when the accident happened; it doesn't exclude death from disease":

Gloria argues that a proper construction of Exclusion Four is the exclusion applies only “to conditions existing when the accident happened” and does not apply to “a condition caused by the accidental injury;” and we find that construction reasonable for purposes of this appeal.

So the case gets reversed and remanded. Fair result? I suppose it depends on whether you look at the type of policy or the specific policy language.