Does a clause in a contract requiring a customer to obtain insurance coverage mean that they had to pay for it?

the customer "is responsible for all bank charges," and "responsible for all costs incurred . . . to transport" the goods so that to be "responsible for" insurance coverage means just that they had to pay for it. In the cited examples, however, that for which the customer is responsible is described as charges or costs. The insurance clause makes the customer responsible for coverage. The only reasonable interpretation of that is that the customer is obligated to obtain coverage. If the insurance clause means that insurance coverage is left to the discretion of the customer, why would the parties put it in the contract? " '[O]ne who states "I promise to render a future performance, if I want to when the time arrives," has made no promise at all.' " (See Asmus v. Pacific Bell (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1, 15, quoting 2 Corbin on Contracts (1995) 5.32, pp. 175-176.) Plaintiffs' interpretation of the insurance clause puts the purchase of insurance wholly under the customers' control. It is no promise at all. The only way the clause is effective as a contract term is if it obligates the customer to obtain insurance coverage on the consigned goods.