What coverage is generally provided by an accounts receivable floater?
Correct Answer: C
The correct answer is C. Loss arising out of credit card receipts being destroyed by fire . An accounts receivable floater is a commercial property coverage designed to protect the insured when records of amounts owed by customers are damaged or destroyed by an insured peril. If accounts receivable records, invoices, charge slips, or credit card receipts are destroyed, the insured may be unable to collect amounts due. The floater may cover sums that cannot be collected, interest on loans required to offset impaired collections, collection expenses, and costs to re-establish records, depending on wording. It does not insure ordinary bad debts, because those are credit risks rather than insured property losses. It also does not cover bookkeeping errors, since errors in accounting are operational or professional mistakes. Maintaining duplicate records offsite is a risk-control method, not a covered loss. Fire destroying credit card receipts is exactly the type of event that can impair the insured's ability to prove and collect receivables. Course topic reference: Property Coverages; Commercial Property Floaters; Accounts Receivable Floater; Records and Collection Losses .
C131 Exam Question 7
Angie is frustrated with her insurer as she recently had a mysterious disappearance claim that was denied under her commercial property policy. Why was Angie likely denied her claim?
Correct Answer: A
The correct answer is A. She had chosen named perils coverage . Named perils coverage only responds when the loss is caused by a peril specifically listed in the policy. If the cause of loss cannot be shown to fall within one of those named perils, the claim will usually fail. Mysterious disappearance is difficult because the insured may know property is missing but cannot prove theft, burglary, fire, or another insured peril. Under a broad or all-risks form, unexplained disappearance may still be limited or excluded depending on wording, but under named perils coverage the problem is even more direct: the insured must prove the loss was caused by an insured peril. A previous similar claim may affect underwriting attitude, but it does not automatically deny a current valid claim. An appraisal timing issue is not the reason for denial unless policy conditions specifically make it relevant. Unearned premium is not a normal basis to deny a claim when the policy is in force. The broker should explain that cheaper named perils coverage provides narrower protection and requires stronger proof of cause. Course topic reference: Property Coverages; Named Perils; Mysterious Disappearance; Proof of Loss; Coverage Limitations .
C131 Exam Question 8
An insured who owns a factory had a major loss. A pressure vessel ruptured due to a faulty safety valve, causing water escape, that resulted in significant water damage. The insured is covered by two insurance policies. Which policy will cover this loss?
Correct Answer: A
The correct answer is A. The insured's EBI policy will pay the loss in full . Equipment breakdown insurance, often called EBI, is designed to cover losses caused by sudden and accidental breakdown of covered equipment, including pressure vessels, boilers, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and related apparatus. In this scenario, the loss begins with a pressure vessel rupturing due to a faulty safety valve. That is an equipment breakdown event. The resulting escape of water and physical damage to the factory are consequences of the equipment breakdown. Therefore, the EBI policy is the appropriate responding policy, subject to its terms, limits, and exclusions. A commercial general liability policy would not pay the insured's own first-party property damage in full; CGL is designed primarily for third-party bodily injury or property damage claims. A remediation policy is normally associated with environmental cleanup or pollution, not a pressure vessel rupture. The insured does not simply choose whichever policy they prefer. Coverage depends on the cause of loss and policy wording. The proximate cause here is equipment breakdown. Course topic reference: Property Coverages; Equipment Breakdown Insurance; Pressure Vessels; Consequential Property Damage; First-Party Loss .
C131 Exam Question 9
A major automotive manufacturer is launching a line of electric vehicles. It intends to outsource the production of the vehicle batteries to a new supplier. The manufacturer's risk manager has requested that the supplier provide evidence of comprehensive vendor liability insurance, before the contract can be finalized. What is the likely reason for the request?
Correct Answer: A
The correct answer is A. The manufacturer does not want to be held responsible for product liability claims . Vendor liability coverage is relevant when one party sells, distributes, incorporates, or is associated with another party's products. In this case, the electric vehicle manufacturer is outsourcing battery production to a supplier. Batteries are a critical component and can create serious product liability exposures, including fire, explosion, overheating, property damage, bodily injury, product recall, and reputational damage. If a defect in the supplier's battery causes injury or damage, the vehicle manufacturer may be named in a product liability action because the batteries are part of its finished electric vehicles. By requiring evidence of comprehensive vendor liability insurance, the manufacturer is attempting to ensure that the supplier has insurance that can respond to product-related claims arising from the supplier's component. This does not guarantee that the supplier prioritizes the manufacturer's work, and it is not mainly about failure to perform the contract. Contractual liability may be relevant in agreements, but the stronger issue is product liability arising from a defective component supplied by another business. Course topic reference: Manufacturers, Distributors, and Freight Forwarders; Products Liability; Vendor Liability; Supplier and Component Exposures .
C131 Exam Question 10
In the absence of specific expertise in construction, which party will generally arrange a wrap-up liability policy?
Correct Answer: D
The correct answer is D. Party in control of the project . A wrap-up liability policy is commonly arranged for construction projects where several parties are involved, such as owners, general contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and sometimes project managers. The purpose is to provide a coordinated liability program for the project rather than relying only on separate liability policies carried by each participant. When no special construction expertise dictates otherwise, the party in control of the project is usually best positioned to arrange the wrap-up because that party can define the project scope, identify participants, determine required limits, coordinate certificates, and ensure the policy applies throughout the construction period. A general contractor may arrange the policy in some projects, especially if it controls the work, but the broader and more technically correct answer is the party controlling the project. A subcontractor would not normally arrange a project-wide wrap-up because their role is limited to a portion of the work. The party controlling only the land may not control construction operations. Course topic reference: Builders Risk; Contractors; Wrap-Up Liability; Project-Controlled Insurance Programs; Construction Risk Financing .
