Exclusions found within particular insurance plan types, precluding protection for statements which can be remotely—but perhaps not directly—related to the actual nature of the exclusion. The consequence of these language would be to conquer protection in circumstances in which maybe it's sensibly expected that coverage would apply. As an example, a complete exclusion in an insurance plan written to pay for insurance representatives' mistakes and omissions (E&O) exposures might review the following: "This plan cannot apply to any 'Claim' from the 'Insured' ... according to or directly or ultimately arising away from or regarding any actual or alleged 'bodily damage.'" Believe, for example, that an insurance broker failed to safe bodily injury (BI) obligation protection for a client and also the client is later on held liable for BI. Your client then sues the broker for failing continually to obtain the right insurance plan. Given the wording of "absolute" exclusion noted above, the agent's policy might not react to the claim. Simply because the client's allegation indirectly arose from and ended up being "related to" BI. Lately, these "absolute" exclusions have grown to be more prevalent, and insurers have, with increasing frequency, already been with them to reject coverage of claims that will otherwise be seemingly covered.