[BartjeD]

In most European countries, UK excluded, the law of contracts doesn't work this way.

Reasonableness and good faith are implied in contracts. If a clause kills the essence of a contract maliciously, the court will not enforce it.

[clort]

As I understood it, even in the UK there is the concept of a 'reasonable man' as in, the contract should perform as a 'reasonable man' would expect. If it does not, that is enough to get such terms discarded. So, you cannot just obfuscate the contract with impenetrable legalese that excludes reasonable things and expect to get away with that. Which is not to say that (insurance) companies will not try.

my source for this was an ex career insurance man (retired out)

[raverbashing]

Yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

[BartjeD]

The difference is you have to sue for e.g. negligence if a term is reasonable but not implied in the contract.

In civil law you can sue with an action under contract enforcement, which carries a lighter burden of proof