Consider the relationship between a homeowner and and insurer offering homeowners policies. We know that homeowner insurance policies often include \"catchall\" clauses, such as, "in the event of any contingency not explicitly mentioned in this contract, the insurance company is not liable for damages to the homeowner's property..\". It is obvious why an insurer might want to limit its own liability using a catchall clause; such clauses reduce its expected liability. But give a reason why an insurance company would want to explicitly mention and take responsibility for a contingency that otherwise might be relegated to a catchall clause, such as the risk of lightning setting the house on re, or a meteor striking the house, etc