JB-
No need to reply, I think I've answered my own question (#2 in this thread).
The answer is yes.
FWIW, courts have been known to invalidate rules that are not uniformly applied. Little doubt our dues paid the exorbitant fee of some legal weasel to point that out to the insurance guru. This appears intended to closes a loophole that might have allowed anyone denied coverage for liability incurred because his action was not in compliance with the SC to argue that the rule was void because there had been other instances where it wasn't enforced.
The wording change allows claims to be paid or denied at their pleasure, as before, but now they 'may' do that without concern that the validity of the rule might be challenged. AMA is just reinforcing their defenses.....against us.
Disclaimer: IANAL, thank Zeus! This is my opinion. I am not privy to what anyone else is thinking.

Abel