Mistakes in Quiz Questions

[Button]

There have been enough, I thought we should have a whole thread for them.

The latest one I have encountered, in section 14.2 elements of negligence:

Martin, a 15-year-old boy, carelessly tossed a glass bottle over the heads of several people toward a recycling bin fifteen feet away. Luckily, Martin did not hit anybody between him and the recycling bin, and the glass fell perfectly into the bin. Unluckily, a private investigator was hiding in the recycling bin at that moment and suffered a concussion from Martin's bottle. Which one of the following is the most significant legal issue that the investigator might face in a negligence claim against Martin?

A. Negligence per se
B. Martin's age
C. The reasonable person test
D. Proximate cause

I chose C and got: Incorrect. Proximate cause is the most significant legal issue that the investigator might face in a negligence claim against Martin, because Martin cannot be liable for results that could not have been reasonably foreseen.

But, if he can't be liable for results that could not have reasonable foreseen - isn't that the reasonable person test? And proximate cause is that the wrongful act must have been the direct cause of harm. I think it is pretty clear that the concussion was directly caused by being hit by the bottle.

[Button]

Also, I just love how assumption of risk was not discussed as one of the defenses to negligence claims (14.3), but it seems to be the answer for at least half of the quiz questions...

[Button]

Just found another one! 14.5 - Intentional Torts. First thing you learn is that Battery involves bodily contact, no matter how slight, and Assualt does not involve physical contact.

This is the question:
Which one of the following describes a difference between battery and assault?

Choose one answer.
A. No physical contact is required for battery but it is for assault.
B. Fear of bodily harm is required for battery but not assault.
C. The person needs to be conscious with battery but not with assault.
D. Battery is an intentional tort and assault is not.

There is no right answer to this question. The right answer they list is A. No physical contact is required for battery, but it is for assualt.

I wish someone had proofread this course!

[Button]

Wow I'm filling this thread up all by myself :-) Still in 14.5 - here's the question:

In addition to the tort intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiffs can also allege an intentional act which causes mental anguish and physical injury known as

Choose one answer.
A. Unintentional infliction of emotional distress.
B. Negligent infliction of emotional distress. Correct. In addition to the tort intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiffs can also allege an intentional act which causes mental anguish and physical injury known as negligent infliction of emotional distress.
C. Deliberate infliction of emotional distress.
D. Intentional mental anguish act.

Well, negligent infliction of emotional distress is when the act is UNintentional, not intentional. :shake2::roll::evil2:

[cardinal_actuary]

I emailed the CAS about who to contact regarding these mistakes. This was the response. A similar statement has also been added to the syllabus.

Questions about potentially defective questions or material should be directed to The Institutes’ Customer Service Department at (800) 644-2101 or (610) 644-2100, extension 6000, or CustomerService@TheInstitutes.org.

[gaddy]

Ch 5, PAP common endorsements, there is a Q about a girl who cares for an elderly woman who insists that the girl use the old lady's car when running errands. Wouldn't the extended non-owned coverage fit best for this scenario? Named Non-Owner was the answer given.

[Vorian Atreides]

The girl has regular access and permission to use the car; even to the point where it's expected.

So it's a bit different from just letting a friend use the car (who doesn't have regular access/permission of use).

Without adding the girl to the policy (since she's not a family member--which I'm assuming is the case) as a Named Non-Owner, the insurance company can deny any claims for which the girl is at fault.

[gaddy]

The girl has regular access and permission to use the car; even to the point where it's expected.

So it's a bit different from just letting a friend use the car (who doesn't have regular access/permission of use).

Without adding the girl to the policy (since she's not a family member--which I'm assuming is the case) as a Named Non-Owner, the insurance company can deny any claims for which the girl is at fault.

Ah. Thanks VA.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Which one of the following best describes the U.S. GAAP accounting treatment of ceded loss reserves on an insurer's balance sheet?

A. Ceded loss reserves are treated as a liability.
B. Ceded loss reserves are treated as an offset to a liability.
C. Ceded loss reserves only appear on the income statement.
D. Ceded loss reserves are treated as an asset.

Answer:
Answer is D; I thought it would be a negative liab (ans B)

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Jack and Susan own and manage a hotel. They have posted signs that they are not responsible for the property of hotel guests. However, if a court establishes that they do have to reimburse a guest for a property loss, it will most likly be decided on the legal basis of

A. Factual expectancy. Correct
B. Exposure to absolute or strict liability. Incorrect
C. Contractual obligations. Incorrect
D. Representation of another party. Incorrect


answer: Factual expectancy.

looks more like this to me:
Exposure to legal liability
a. Sometimes one party can have legal responsibility for
property owned by others. (For example, a hotelier has an
insurable interest in guests’ property.)

I thought factual expectancy is where you don't legally own property, but still have a financial interest in it

[Vorian Atreides]

Jack and Susan own and manage a hotel. They have posted signs that they are not responsible for the property of hotel guests. However, if a court establishes that they do have to reimburse a guest for a property loss, it will most likly be decided on the legal basis of

A. Factual expectancy. Correct
B. Exposure to absolute or strict liability. Incorrect
C. Contractual obligations. Incorrect
D. Representation of another party. Incorrect


answer: Factual expectancy.

looks more like this to me:
Exposure to legal liability
a. Sometimes one party can have legal responsibility for
property owned by others. (For example, a hotelier has an
insurable interest in guests’ property.)

I thought factual expectancy is where you don't legally own property, but still have a financial interest in it

Having not seen any of the course material (so I can't related it to previous syllabus material) . . . however, I would argue in this case that strict liability would need to be demonstrated/established since "factual expectancy" just sounds like "duty owed to another party" which is part of establishing negligence.

The fact that the hotel posts a sign indicating that the responsibility of protection of personal property is not the hotels does not establish "factual expectancy" . . . in fact, it seems to be that it removes that criteria.

The only thing left that would justify a successful suit by the plaintiff is the presence of strict liability.

So, B seems to be the correct answer.

[littlebull]

Which one of the following best describes an aggregate loss cover reinsurance contract?

Choose one answer.

A. An aggregate loss cover reinsurance contract is typically prospective reinsurance.

B. An aggregate loss cover reinsurance contract is often used as a part of insurer acquisitions.

C. An aggregate loss cover reinsurance contract is typically retrospective reinsurance.

Incorrect. An aggregate loss cover reinsurance contract is often used as a part of insurer acquisitions.

D. An aggregate loss cover reinsurance contract allows a reinsurer to protect itself from adverse loss experience.

.Incorrect
Marks for this submission: 0/1..

>> C and D seem correct to me... how would I determine which is best? "D" isn't even mentioned in the outline, just in the online course, unlike "C" which is in both.

[littlebull]

Quiz questions in 14.5 ask about "Absolute priviledge" and "Conditional privilege", neither of which I remember in the online course or printed notes.

Did I miss this some how?

[littlebull]

Quiz question in 14.5:
Which one of the following is a tort involving use or disclosure of information?

Choose one answer.
A. Publicly placing plaintiff in a false light
B. Public disclosure of facts
C. Unauthorized use of information
D. Appropriation of plaintiff’s name or likeness

A and D are on the list in my notes?

[littlebull]

Again in 14.5:

Which one of the following are examples of trade libel?

Choose one answer.

A. False statements denying the plaintiff’s title to the property

B. False statements regarding the plaintiff’s advertising reputation

C. False statements concerning the product’s reputation

D. False statements concerning the quantity of the plaintiff’s packaging

Says the answer is A, but what is wrong with C? The notes say that product disparagement, or trade libel, involves intentionally false or misleading statements about a characteristic of the plaintiff's product...".

[gaddy]

Again in 14.5:

Which one of the following are examples of trade libel?

Choose one answer.

A. False statements denying the plaintiff’s title to the property

B. False statements regarding the plaintiff’s advertising reputation

C. False statements concerning the product’s reputation

D. False statements concerning the quantity of the plaintiff’s packaging

Says the answer is A, but what is wrong with C? The notes say that product disparagement, or trade libel, involves intentionally false or misleading statements about a characteristic of the plaintiff's product...".

This would be a good one to report to the Institutes. I had the same question and thought the same thing.

[gaddy]

Last section in Ch 6 (6.8): Question with $250 deductible, $5000 in jewelry damage and $2000 in fur coat damage--how much is reimbursed?

Answer given was 4750, but wouldn't it be 1250?

[MelonPicklesMayo]

Last section in Ch 6 (6.8): Question with $250 deductible, $5000 in jewelry damage and $2000 in fur coat damage--how much is reimbursed?

Answer given was 4750, but wouldn't it be 1250?

Are you sure the answer wasn't 6750? I just did that question...

The answer is 6750 because the damage wasn't due to theft, in which case there would be specified limits for jewelry and furs. 5000+2000-250=6750

[modelthry]

Are you sure the answer wasn't 6750? I just did that question...

The answer is 6750 because the damage wasn't due to theft, in which case there would be specified limits for jewelry and furs. 5000+2000-250=6750

Agreed, 6750. God I hate the special sublimits.

[gaddy]

Agreed, 6750. God I hate the special sublimits.

They do suck. That makes sense - I was incorrect in my first post. Answer is 6750. (4750 would be a cruel answer choice if it were due to theft... since that would be the commercial property answer). Thanks to both.

[goodluckexam]

100 hours for online exam. I thought it would be much less than that :(

[gaddy]

100 hours for online exam. I thought it would be much less than that :(

It should be somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 the time put into a real exam. And after that effort, you should feel VERY comfortable that you'll pass, whereas on an actuarial exam you might not feel so sure. If you want the same "comfort" level as you may have with the actuarial exams, you could probably study about 50 or so.