Can a clause in a policy that states that an insurer may deny coverage, such as s. 1.4 of the policy, be interpreted as "may" preclude coverage?

I will, however, comment that I do not endorse the motion judge's reasoning that a clause, such as s. 1.4 of the policy, providing that an insurer "may" deny coverage, cannot preclude coverage. Such an interpretation would render s. 1.4 meaningless. To the extent that Matt v. Crawford relied on the same reasoning, I disagree with that case.