Final answer:
Legal cases depend on specifics and evidence, but in insurance law, premiums must cover claims, costs, and profits. John Green's outcome will depend on policy terms and lawsuit facts. Cases like Juliana v. United States show that courts consider compelling evidence seriously, though outcomes can be unclear.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the question of how the court will probably rule in John Green's lawsuit against his insurance company, it is essential to consider that the outcome of legal cases depends on specific facts, evidence presented, and applicable laws. However, in general, insurance law mandates that over time, insurance premiums collected from the average person must cover claims, the operational costs of the company, and allow for company profits. This is a fundamental law of insurance that applies regardless of investment income earned on reserves, administrative costs, and varying risk profiles among different groups. If John Green's case mirrors these principles and he has a legitimate claim under his policy's terms, the court might rule in his favor. Nonetheless, without more information on the specifics of the lawsuit and the policy terms, a conclusive answer is not possible. Moreover, the case of Juliana v. United States demonstrates that courts can take compelling evidence seriously, even in cases initially deemed frivolous, like those involving environmental damages. While the future of such landmark cases remains unclear, the underlying principle that insurance is meant to spread risk and cover legitimate claims holds strong.