Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions governing the issues presented in this case

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether contestability precedent from this Court, see Hurni, Enelow, Stewari, Pickering, Wallerstein and Button; the N.C. Supreme Court, see American Trust Co. and Chavis; and unanimous Circuit Courts of Appeals; and the NC Department of Insurance's N.C.G.S §58-58-22(2) mandate, Lincoln's broken contestability promise to insured, VP/Chief of Claim's contestable admission by claim denial. and VP/Chief Underwriter's Rule §30(b)(6) contestability admissions; and authorities holding that Lincoln must have filed its contest within its two-year contestable time period bar Lincoln's June 6, 2013, over fifteen month untimely filed contest? See Apps. 9, 11. 2. Whether Lincoln's breaches of its Agreement paragraphs 9(b), 19{a), (b) and (c), 20(a), 23 and 30; eleven day untimely filed extension request to file its Answer; and failure to meet the substantive requirements of in a Rule §54(d)(2)(A)"claim to be made by motion:" file a fee motion and bill of costs within 014 days after judgment entry; and adhere to Governing Indiana law and its drafted arbitration provision; and petitioner's special circumstances, bar Lincoln's fees? 3. Whether the courts below omitted Insured Ben's March 23, 2010 first specialist consult "for possible ALS" and petitioner's remaining claims, including that Lincoln: first contested the policy, application and agreement beyond applicable statutes of limitation, affirmed the policy through September 21, 2012, accepted premium after notice and knowledge, did not prove Fed.R.Civ.P. §9(b) time particularity over Ben's application admittedly dated by Mitchell, exercise due diligence or ever inquire of received statements, and committed eight or more unfair claim settlement practices and/or unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S. §§ 58-63-15(11); 75-1.1?