Matthew's Journal

Yes, if it's something unforeseen at the time by both parties which ends up giving a huge advantage/disadvantage to one person, especially if the intention behind the clause is something different.

This would tend to be due to bad drafting, although a lot of these things only become obvious in hindsight.

Hypothetical example:

You insure your house for all risks, but the small print excludes damage caused by a riot, and gives the current police definition of a riot. The reason behind this is that the police will pay compensation for riot damage, so you don't need insurance.

Part way through the policy, the police change the definition of a riot slightly. You're no longer covered (Or covered twice!).
It would, I think, be moral to challenge the policy to suggest it should read 'whatever is defined as a riot by the police when the incident happens'.
Of course, the insurance company might be able to argue that factoring in possible changes of definitions would have made the policy more expensive.

However, as the insurance company were the ones who drafted the contract, I think they have more of a moral obligation than the purchaser to ensure the contract is drafted well enough that the small print conforms to the underlying intentions and expectations of the contract.