You'd really prefer not to see an opinion that starts like this, in a case you argued:

There are good reasons not to call an opponent's argument "ridiculous," which is what State Farm calls Barbara Bennett's argument here.

Uh-oh.

The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away (especially when, as here, the hyperbole begins on page one of the brief); and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, "the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions." Big Dipper Entm't, L.L.C. v. City of Warren, 641 F.3d 715, 719 (6th Cir. 2011).

Dang.

But here the biggest reason is more simple: the argument that State Farm derides as ridiculous is instead correct.

Bam!

Which explains why we prefer to understate. As did the court in Bennett v. State Farm Mut. Aubomobile Ins. Co., No. 13-3047, slip op. 1 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2013) (reversing summary judgment for insurer whose policy defined "occupant" as including a person "on" the vehicle) (Kethledge, J.).