not vest but the terms did, the premiums can theoretically be raised until they correlate to the risk presented by the fixed coverage terms. But these answers are not logically inconsistent. Inconsistency would result if it were impossible that the answers to questions 2 and 4 be “no” if the answers to 1 and 3 were “yes.” But they are not mutually exclusive: GAF and IAM could have bargained for the vesting of premiums but not terms. True inconsistency results when, for instance, in a tort suit an interrogatory asking whether the plaintiff has proven any damage is answered “no” while the answer to another interrogatory purports to quantify the proven damages in dollars. See Auwood, 850 F.2d at 891. Logical, not economic consistency is the touchstone. See, e.g., Crockett, 65 F.3d at 278 (<HOLDING>); FDIC v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 45 F.3d 969,
recognizing as an element of pain and suffering recognizing as separate from pain and suffering holding that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence holding that jury could not logically award all costs for the surgery and no damages for future pain and suffering holding that the alleged inconsistency between the awarding of future medical expenses and the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering could be readily resolved and did not require a new trial