For example: I cannot remember my mother's birthday, but I can recite in detail the ongoing impact of the 1985 Fire Class Rate Manual.

I can no longer listen to Led Zeppelin's “When the Levee Breaks” without visualizing New Orleans flooding. Ditto for Sammy Hagar's ode to motor vehicle records, “I Can't Drive 55.”

While my wife peruses Zillow for new room designs, I muse on how the homes were largely built by general contractors who cut corners with uninsured subcontractors whose audits will be returned as uncollectible.

If we go to a nice restaurant and hear a crash in the kitchen, my brain immediately thinks “Workers' Comp.”

Somewhere along the road, my brain began seamlessly transposing every single occurrence of the words “accident” into “lawsuit,” “insured” into “claimant” and “certificate requester” into “idiot.”

I am puzzled by what otherwise appears to be innocent policy language, such as the following paragraph from the Commercial General Liability form ISO CG 22 30, Exclusion-Corporal Punishment: “This insurance does not apply to 'bodily injury,' 'property damage' or 'personal and advertising injury' to your student arising out of any corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of any insured.”

Anyone who has been near a high school football coach knows libel and slander is expected and intended, while malicious prosecution is a given. False arrest, detention or imprisonment? Sounds like high school.

I can't stop pondering the purpose of the Commercial Auto form ISO CA 23 05, Wrong Delivery of Liquid Products. The title seems clear, but only until you arrive at the following qualifying clause: The exclusion only applies “if the 'bodily injury' or 'property damage' occurs after delivery has been completed.” But wait: the CA 00 01, Business Auto Coverage Form, already specifically excludes completed operations, defined as “bodily injury” or “property damage” arising out of your work after that work has been completed or abandoned. Therefore, the endorsement exclusion excludes what is already excluded. Do they cancel each other out?

The following is truly located on page 4 of the Coverage Property form ISO CP 00 10—and is intended as a clarification!

“The basic amount payable for debris removal expense under the terms of Paragraph (3) is calculated as follows: $80,000 ($79,500 loss payable + $500 deductible) x .25 = $20,000, capped at $10,500. The cap applies because the sum of the loss payable ($79,500) and the basic amount payable for debris removal expense ($10,500) cannot exceed the Limit of Insurance ($90,000).

“The additional amount payable for debris removal expense is provided in accordance with the terms of Paragraph (4), because the debris removal expense ($40,000) exceeds 25% of the loss payable plus the deductible ($40,000 is 50% of $80,000), and because the sum of the loss payable and debris removal expense ($79,500 + $40,000 = $119,500) would exceed the Limit of Insurance ($90,000). The additional amount of covered debris removal expense is $25,000, the maximum payable under Paragraph (4). Thus, the total payable for debris removal expense in this example is $35,500; $4,500 of the debris removal expense is not covered.”

Only the ISO and the “Big Bang Theory” nerds would think a highly complicated, detailed construct is actually easier to understand than a simple, clear statement.

So please, Santa, a new brain for Christmas. One all shiny and clean, eager to absorb new experiences, live new adventures, bask in new emotions, and participate in discussions of additional insured requests on certificates without resigned cynicism.