And Creampuff, I can assure you that the courts will look at the intent of the rule, that's their job, to apply intent!!!
And to ascertain the intent, the Court will interpret the words of the rule, in context. To do that, the Court will not invite individual members to say what they earnestly hope the words to mean. This thread demonstrates that that way lies madness.
By the way, are you an MBF member, because in your post you state, "If I were an MBF member"?
No I'm not a member.
But my membership or otherwise of the MBF is, like various individual MBF member's earnest hopes as to what a rule might mean, completely irrelevant to what a rule does mean as a matter of law.
(Snake: The proceeds of other private insurance policies are probably not covered by the exclusion, because those proceeds are probably not paid under legislation. But, like all of these things, it's best to ask and get definitive answers
before a life changing event that makes the answers important.)