Did the U.S. Eastern District Court err in using extrinsic evidence to deny the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice despite no ambiguity in the insurance contract?

No question identified. : QUESTION: (S) PRESENTED 1.) DID U.S. EASTERN DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY UTILIZING EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO DENY THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, ALTHOUGH THAT COURT FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY AMBIGUITY INSIDE OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT? ; (AFTER HAD BEEN SATISFIED) 2.) IF THE U.S. EASTERN DISTRICT COURT WERE CORRECT IN: THE REVERSING OF ITS RULING “AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY HAVE BEEN SATISFIED” (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION), DID THE _ U.S. EASTERN DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT . ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFE’S TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, UPON THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION BEING REVERSED? eo 3.) DID THE U.S. EASTERN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TROY L: NUNLEY . ABUSED HIS DISCRETION, BY THE FAILURE TO ADDRESS WHEHTER THE U.S. MAGISTRATE KENDALL J. NEWMAN ERRED IN THE USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IN HIS REVERSAL OF THE ; PLAINTIFFS JURISDICTIONAL STANDING? (UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT!) ; 4.) DID THE U.S: EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW : THE ORDINARY PRINCIPALES OF CONTRACT LAW, AND STARE DECISIS HOLDING IN-M & G POLYMERS USA, LLC v. TACKETT? i 5.) DID PLAINTIFF’S “MERITS” OF THE 3% INTEREST ACCURED FOR NOW 69 YEARS, AND TWO NONFORFEITURE BENEEIT’S—. (FOR A POLICY’S WITHOUT INDEBTEDNESS) VALUE’S WERE _ OVERLAPPING WITH THE COURT’S ASSESMENT OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION? (CREATING INTERTWINE JURISDICTION?) ~ . . Il. . . : .