QUESTION 5 Having satisfied the junior examiner that arbitration offers a faster, lest costly way to resolve legal matters, with both parties being bound by the arbitrator's decision, the conversation moved to one of the underwriters present who had a question regarding no-fault insurance. She was familiar with the no-fault laws of Transitions' state of domicile that permitted lawsuits in the case of serious injuries. But she was unaware that other states' no-fault laws permitted lawsuits in other situations. Wasn't the right to sue a conflict with the principle of no-fault auto insurance? Which of the following responses did she receive from the auto insurance product manager in the meeting? I'm not sure where you heard that other states have different laws that here. All states' no-fault laws are the same and permit injured parties to sue only in O the case of serious injury. In a handful of states, no-fault laws do permit injured parties to sue but only if more than one family member is injured as the result of a single accident. All states permit injured parties to sue the responsible party if the injury is above a specified monetary amount. While all states with no-fault auto insurance laws permit legal action in the case of serious injuries, some also permit it when the injury claim exceeds a verbal threshold. QUESTION 6 The new claims adjuster couldn't believe he had issued the check to the principal rather than the obligee! Sometimes the answer is staring you right in the face. He thanks his peers and passes the floor to the broker sitting to his left. The broker says he hopes his dilemma doesn't stump the group. He explains that he's relatively new to crime insurance and fidelity institution bonds and needs assistance creating the right coverage for a sophisticated client with complex needs. He shares that in order to determine the correct coverage for his business, the client has asked the broker to share how a Transitions Insurance Company crime insurance policy would cover some hypothetical claim situations. The broker asks the group to help him form the answers, assuming the policy in question is an ISO commercial crime coverage form (loss sustained form) with the following insuring agreements: Employee Theft Inside the Premises - Theft of Money and Securities Inside the Premises - Robbery or Safe Burglary of Other Property Outside the Premises Here is a hypothetical claim situation: In one of the clients' retail establishments, a customer paid for merchandise by giving the sales associate a $500 money order drawn on a commercial bank. Then the money order was presented to the bank for payment, the bank refused to pay because the money order had been stolen. Unfortunately, the policy as described does not provide coverage for this type of claim. Since money orders are essentially "money", the policy would cover the $500 loss. Since money orders are essentially "money", the policy would cover the loss, but the amount of the loss, $500, is equal to the mandatory deductible applicable to money losses so no claim payment would be made. If the sales associate had attempted to verify the money order at the time it was presented for the purchase, coverage would have existed. Once the money order was accepted, however, even though it was refused by the bank, any coverage that might have applied was null and void. QUESTION 5 Having satisfied the junior examiner that arbitration offers a faster, lest costly way to resolve legal matters, with both parties being bound by the arbitrator's decision, the conversation moved to one of the underwriters present who had a question regarding no-fault insurance. She was familiar with the no-fault laws of Transitions' state of domicile that permitted lawsuits in the case of serious injuries. But she was unaware that other states' no-fault laws permitted lawsuits in other situations. Wasn't the right to sue a conflict with the principle of no-fault auto insurance? Which of the following responses did she receive from the auto insurance product manager in the meeting? I'm not sure where you heard that other states have different laws that here. All states' no-fault laws are the same and permit injured parties to sue only in O the case of serious injury. In a handful of states, no-fault laws do permit injured parties to sue but only if more than one family member is injured as the result of a single accident. All states permit injured parties to sue the responsible party if the injury is above a specified monetary amount. While all states with no-fault auto insurance laws permit legal action in the case of serious injuries, some also permit it when the injury claim exceeds a verbal threshold. QUESTION 6 The new claims adjuster couldn't believe he had issued the check to the principal rather than the obligee! Sometimes the answer is staring you right in the face. He thanks his peers and passes the floor to the broker sitting to his left. The broker says he hopes his dilemma doesn't stump the group. He explains that he's relatively new to crime insurance and fidelity institution bonds and needs assistance creating the right coverage for a sophisticated client with complex needs. He shares that in order to determine the correct coverage for his business, the client has asked the broker to share how a Transitions Insurance Company crime insurance policy would cover some hypothetical claim situations. The broker asks the group to help him form the answers, assuming the policy in question is an ISO commercial crime coverage form (loss sustained form) with the following insuring agreements: Employee Theft Inside the Premises - Theft of Money and Securities Inside the Premises - Robbery or Safe Burglary of Other Property Outside the Premises Here is a hypothetical claim situation: In one of the clients' retail establishments, a customer paid for merchandise by giving the sales associate a $500 money order drawn on a commercial bank. Then the money order was presented to the bank for payment, the bank refused to pay because the money order had been stolen. Unfortunately, the policy as described does not provide coverage for this type of claim. Since money orders are essentially "money", the policy would cover the $500 loss. Since money orders are essentially "money", the policy would cover the loss, but the amount of the loss, $500, is equal to the mandatory deductible applicable to money losses so no claim payment would be made. If the sales associate had attempted to verify the money order at the time it was presented for the purchase, coverage would have existed. Once the money order was accepted, however, even though it was refused by the bank, any coverage that might have applied was null and void