Did Robert DeNiro pull off one of his greatest acting jobs with the insurer covering production delays for a film he was to shoot, only to be diagnosed with prostate cancer soon after? Or did he merely comply faithfully with the letter of his policy contract, as a court has ruled? Listen to the facts and decide.

Fireman's Fund sued DeNiro, charging that he hid the possibility of his suffering from a serious health problem, which eventually delayed production of his 2003 movie, Hide and Seek.

However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu granted summary judgment in favor of the Oscar winner and tossed the case. The insurer says it may appeal.

(To read the complete news story, click here.)

As reported by our own Dan Hays, DeNiros attorneys argued that their client was not diagnosed until AFTER the insurance company's standard physical.

Firemans Fund countered that DeNiro had a biopsy shortly before their own checkup that he did not disclose.

DeNiro's response was that the underwriter only asked whether he was undergoing treatment for a disorder or had a diagnosis, and in fact at that point neither was the case. DeNiro's team successfully argued that a biopsy is not a diagnosis nor a treatment of a disorder–and they're absolutely right. So why does this feel absolutely wrong?

Technically, by sticking strictly to the letter of the contract, DeNiro answered honestly.

But I would argue that the spirit of the contract is that the lead actor should disclose to the film's insurer any possible health problems that might disrupt production.

Someone having a prostate biopsy–no walk in the park–knew something might be seriously amiss. Perhaps he had a bad PSA reading on a recent blood test, or some other physical symptom manifested itself.

In any case, something out of the ordinary prompted his doctor to order a more invasive, conclusive test. Coming right on top of the insurance company's queries, shouldn't that possibility be revealed?

I realize insurers are the first to cite their strict policy language exclusions when denying coverage. Just ask those left up the creek after a combination of wind and flood damage destroyed their homes during Hurricane Katrina.

In the end, I guess DeNiro had the law on his side. Insurers should obviously modify their underwriting questionnaire to ask point blank whether a key player has undergone any diagnostic test in the past 90-days before writing a film's coverage.

By the way, DeNiro was treated, and eventually returned to the set and finished the film. Good for him, his financial backers, and his millions of fans.

Indeed, had he won an Oscar for that role, I would hope he would have thanked Fireman's Fund in his acceptance speech for keeping his production from going bust in his absence. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

What do you folks think?