I'm sure you are right.  The policy isn't very logical unless the payout under 8b is greater than the payout under 8a... otherwise, when property values have fallen, the title company can go through the motions of attempting to cure title with no real intent to succeed in that attempt, and save itself money on a future cash payout through that meaningless pretense.  Because of that, I'm actually kind of surprised that the judge didn't find a way to justify the lower valuation based on the date of the claim, which I think could be seen as implied in 8a in reading section 8 as a whole.  I'm not saying that I think the judge was wrong necessarily, but it seems to me like most judges go for the "common sense" option in situations like this

By the way, these title policies were issued in 2008, of course well after property values were already falling.  I'm sure the language was written well before then, but I bet there is someone getting some heat that it was not reviewed!