Whether Hurni, Enelow, Stewart and Pickering contestability precedent from this Court; American Trust Co. and Chavis precedent from the NC Supreme Court; unanimous United States Circuit Courts of Appeal precedent; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-58-22(2); and other cited insurance authorities bar ANICO's defenses

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether Hurni, Enelow, Stewart and Pickering contestability precedent from this Court; American Trust Co. and Chavis precedent from the NC Supreme Court; _ unanimous United States Circuit Courts of Appeal precedent; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5858-22(2); and other cited insurance authorities bar ANICO's defenses since ANICO's first contest of the policy contract was over thirty four months after its two-year contestable time period had expired, which the lower courts manifestly disregarded? 2. Whether ANICO's breaches of an Agreement not submitted, timely received, dated or agreed to by petitioner, not made effective by ANICO, and which does not record petitioner as a party; fee motion, with no affidavit of prevailing market rates or timely filed bill of costs, which is redundant, bundled, ambiguous, unrelated and excessive; final and exclusive Texas arbitration remedy, over which fees are waived; failure to file a position statement, as ordered; and improperly filed fee affidavit, with case law citations within, permits fees against petitioner under precedent from this Court and the NC Supreme Court, all of which the courts below omitted? 3. Whether the district court omitted Ben Laschkewitsch's first "possible ALS" diagnosis date, North Carolina Supreme Court collateral estoppel precedent, NC three year applicable statutes of limitation, estoppel by depositing premium after notice and knowledge and actions and declarations affirming the policy for beyond two years; and ANICO's failure to prove Fed.R.Civ.P § 9(b) particularity, reasonable diligence and inquire of statements received; and unfair claim settlement practices and unfair and deceptive trade practices bar ANICO's untimely contest, excessive _ fees and defenses since the lower courts omitted all such of petitioner's claims?