Old exam questions no longer on syllabus

[jk]

It's time for the ever-popular "Which questions on old exams are no longer on the syllabus?" thread.

I suspect that someone has done this before, but if so I can't find it.

Over the next few weeks I'll be taking the prior exams, from 2000 forward. For the 2000 exam I nominate the following:

15. General marketing (1 point)
18. Mass merchandising programs (1 point)
36. Disability insurance pricing (2 points)
37. Four objectives of insurance companies (4 points)
54. Group medical/dental pricing (2 points)

Total 10 points.

Two motivations in posting this:
1. If anyone thinks I'm wrong about any of these, please say so. With 30 articles covering 1,300 pages it's easy to think something isn't on the syllabus when in fact it is.
2. If anyone knows of the same for later exams, please say so. If not I'll add them to this thread as I take them.

[jk]

For 2000, add:

11. underinsured motorist coverage (1 point)
13. no-fault auto insurance (1 point)

For 2001 we have:

19. no-fault auto insurance (3 points)
21.b. The current reading on health insurance, Chapter 12 of Personal Insurance, makes no assertion as to which type of plan has lowest costs. (1 point)
34. reserving (3 points)
35. combined ratios (2 points)

Total 9 points.

[jk]

For 2001, add question 42 (3 points). "Premium Trend Revisited" by McCarthy is no longer on the syllabus. And a good thing, too--the Jones article on Premium Trend is enough work without having to "revisit" it.

For 2002, we have:

20. uninsured motorist and no-fault (3 points)
21. auto residual market (3 points)
34. Group medical and dental pricing (2 points)

[jk]

For 2002 add 33. a-c. premium trend (3 points) which also references the defunct McCarthy article. Similar material appears in other articles, but some aspects of this question appear specific to McCarthy so it is best skipped. Part d is still valid.

For 2003, we have:

4. product life cycles (1 point)
21.b. HO-6 policy (1.5 points)
23. government insurance programs (1.5 points)
25. employer health care costs (2 points)

[great3981]

Spring 2000 - add 17 & 31

[Examinator]

How about 2000 #16?

[jk]

Yeah, you can probably toss #16. The current chapter on Underwriting dances around the edge of some of the same topics (pages 4.8-4.9), but I don't believe it mentions facultative reinsurance at all.

[Examinator]

2002 #16 deals with an HO-4. The problem makes sense, but I don't think we're liable for it.

I also noticed an inconsistency between the sample answer and the All 10 answer to 2002 #8, regarding the PAP (for whatever it's worth).

[Purple Princess]

:bump:

[Purple Princess]

Summary of invalid questions for 2000

11 (Hamilton & Malecki - underinsured motorists coverages) - 1 point
13 (Hamilton & Malecki - no fault auto insurance) - 1 point
15 (Webb - general marketing) - 1 point
16 (Webb - underwriting submissions - discussed p. 4.6-4.9) - 1 point
17 (Webb - state regulations) - 1 point
18 (Webb - mass merchandising) - 1 point
24 (Head - All10 puts this question in the Anderson section) - 1 point
31 (Group Medical/Dental Benefit Pricing) - 1 point
36 (Hallman & Hamilton) - 2 points
37 (Webb - objectives of insurance companies) - 4 points
54 (Group Medical/Dental Benefit Pricing) - 2 points

Total: 16 points

[2M]

Mahler study guide also puts #24 in the Anderson section, I think this is a valid problem to the current syllabus

[2M]

Summary of invalid questions for 2000


16 (Webb - underwriting submissions - discussed p. 4.6-4.9) - 1 point


Total: 16 points


4.6-4.9 is on the syllabus?

[2M]

#28 as it is written is not compatible to the current syllabus. Mahler study guide has a slightly ammended version that is compatible.

[hzhang]

Mahler study guide also puts #24 in the Anderson section, I think this is a valid problem to the current syllabus
For Spring 2000, #24 is a valid question. Mahler study guide rewrote #28 (Tiller, "individual Risk Rating") to reflect current syllabus.

[hzhang]

For 2002, we have:

20. uninsured motorist and no-fault (3 points)
21. auto residual market (3 points)
34. Group medical and dental pricing (2 points)
How about Q26, 2002 (2 points)? I did not see All 10 include it in its manual and wonder whether it is no longer in the syllabus.

[2M]

How about Q26, 2002 (2 points)? I did not see All 10 include it in its manual and wonder whether it is no longer in the syllabus.

26 is not on the syllabus

[Tommy Vercetti]

What are the questions that no longer on syllabus from Spring 2001's exam?

[2M]

the early posts in this thread describe it pretty well

[hzhang]

For the exam in 2004, #16 is not on the syllabus.

[carrytheCrøss]

Bump. Hopefully we can put this to good use.

[Sen.]

You can argue that all questions on Lange's ILF paper are not on syllabus anymore but All 10 put all those questions for Palmer, the new ILF paper this year. One thing makes me very uncomfortable is that Palmer uses LAS to calculate ILFs but Lange uses loss amounts directly. So most of the computational problems in the past exams are unsolvable if using Palmer's approach because counts are not given. Are there any pratice problems designed for Palmer you guys can recommend?

[tbug]

Fikes has some great problems, but you'll have to sign up for his seminar to get them. It's worth it, IMO!

[2M]

You can argue that all questions on Lange's ILF paper are not on syllabus anymore but All 10 put all those questions for Palmer, the new ILF paper this year. One thing makes me very uncomfortable is that Palmer uses LAS to calculate ILFs but Lange uses loss amounts directly. So most of the computational problems in the past exams are unsolvable if using Palmer's approach because counts are not given. Are there any pratice problems designed for Palmer you guys can recommend?


Palmer's approach is different than Lange's which makes the Lange questions pretty useless

I would trying working through each Palmer exhibit, understanding what they do and then creating your own practice problems from them.

This is where the test questions are likely to come from

[roseberykebab]

Exam 2002 - Question 7 (based on the excluded exhibit 2-2 in Flitner/Trupin)

Someone want to confirm that. Thanks.

Andy

[Sen.]

Fikes has some great problems, but you'll have to sign up for his seminar to get them. It's worth it, IMO!

Thanks for the info! I took Fike's seminar for part 6 and didn't convert to one of his fans. Mahler is still my favorite. I took his seminar for part 5 last year and felt great but got a 5 8(. From the score report, I can see I failed on CPCU part which Mahler didn't cover anyway. Palmer is the only new paper this year so I don't think it's a big deal if I don't have those Fike practice problems. Thanks again for your inputs.

[Sen.]

Palmer's approach is different than Lange's which makes the Lange questions pretty useless

I would trying working through each Palmer exhibit, understanding what they do and then creating your own practice problems from them.

This is where the test questions are likely to come from

You sound like one of the seminar instructors(can't remember who though). I guess what you say should be the best approach for me. Because I mastered Lange's paper last year, my mind always goes to that paper while I read Palmer's paper this year. I wish Lange's paper were not in my memory at all. It makes my learning Palmer's paper more difficult though. Anyway, thanks again!

[carrytheCrøss]

Exam 2002 - Question 7 (based on the excluded exhibit 2-2 in Flitner/Trupin)

Someone want to confirm that. Thanks.

Andy
I agree, to an extent. All-10 would agree since 2002, #6 -- a very related question -- is included in the list of applicable exam questions for this chapter, but 2002, #7 is not.

However, please note that in the required reading:

i) Ch. 2 mentions the Outdoor Property extension, which covers outdoor antennae; and
ii) Ch. 3 (p. 3.14) states that money is not covered under any of the CPP coverage forms.

So, part of this question is still valid, I would say.

[2M]

:bump:

[2M]

2000 #32c

No specific mention of "Doctine of Subrogation" in the current syllabus

[2M]

2000 #35c

The term "trade fixtures"

[carrytheCrøss]

2000 #32c

No specific mention of "Doctine of Subrogation" in the current syllabus
It's not stated as the official "Doctrine of Subrogation" in the question; it's stated as "the doctrine of subrogation". I'm taking this to mean the concept of subrogation. Subrogation is described in Wiening, Chapters 8 and 12, and elsewhere.

2000 #34 Umbrella and excess policies
These concepts are explicitly discussed in Flitner and Trupin, Chapter 13.

[2M]

You are correct on #34 - it is also in Myhr & Markham but on pages just outside the syllabus readings, which is why I thought it was out - Thanks

regarding 32c - There is a "Principle of Subrogration" defined in the old texts or as the question says "doctrine" is not in the new texts.

The concept of subrogration is.

The solution to 32c describes a process that I am not able to find in the new books. So why I listed this one was because the learning objects under Weining appear to say we need to know basic terminology. Thus we need to know what subrogation is but, we likely won't be asked this question in this format and with this much detail.

[carrytheCrøss]

regarding 32c - There is a "Principle of Subrogration" defined in the old texts or as the question says "doctrine" is not in the new texts.
I see.

The solution to 32c describes a process that I am not able to find in the new books.
I think one could still attack this part using Wiening, Ch. 8. They mention nine fundamental assumptions about insurance, and #4 and #5 refer to indemnification: overindemnification can create a moral hazard, and insureds should not be indemnifed more than once per loss. Subrogation is thus consistent with the "principles" of indemnity.

But, yeah, gotta focus on the learning objectives.

[2M]

The second part of 32c says to explain if "doctrine of subrogation" is consistent with the principle of indemnity.

Replace the word "doctrine" with "concept" and you have a question consistent with the current syllabus.


The point though is, especially in the CPCU readings, there appear to be some terms mentioned in the old texts that do not carry over to the new texts.

The main test for me, as to whether the question is valid would be, can you fit the question, with the model CAS solution, as it is written, under a learning objective.

32c as it is written does not fit. The altered question as I wrote above and as you answered in your post certainly does.

[tbug]

bump

[2M]

2001#31

4 suits in employers liability

3rd party over
consequential injury
loss of consortium
dual capacity

I can't find these terms in the readings

Does anyone else see them?

[carrytheCrøss]

2001#31

4 suits in employers liability

3rd party over
consequential injury
loss of consortium
dual capacity

I can't find these terms in the readings

Does anyone else see them?
The bolded terms appear in Flitner and Trupin, Ch. 12.

[2M]

Under the current reading

2003 #8 is an invalid question

[alphaace]

#50 from 2000 seems different from the current ILF reading. I don't think that should count.

[2M]

Most of the ILF exam problems are pretty useless. The current paper uses a different method.

[hellomath]

Should 2003 #1 be excluded?

It mentions - The party claiming subrogation is only secondarily liable for the debt.

AFAIK, I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the 4 CPCU books.

[2M]

Subrogation is still in the syllabus. Last years reading though spoke of a "Subrogation Doctrine" which is not in this years syllabus.

This doctrine is where this question is taken from.

[alphaace]

can someone explain why this is true? I thought the party claiming subrogation is the insurer since the insurer is liable to pay the claim. Wouldn't that mean primarily liable to pay the debt??

[2M]

The answer lies in choice 1 of this question. In order to first claim subrogation you must have first paid it, therefore you are secondary liable.

The party at fault in any case is primary liable.

[2M]

2006 13b

Anywhere in the surrent syllabus that defines the three elements of provng strict liability in tort ofr products liability???

[ReserveRage]

2005 #23 parts c and d

Are these discussed anywhere? I could only find a and b under the EBL section (ch 12 of the commercial readings)

[2M]

See post 36 and 37 in this thread

[ReserveRage]

oh, I didn't realize it was in 2001 also. What about 2005 #26 b. "contact of adhesion" I can't find that either although I must admit it sounds familiar..pehaps from insurers vs. reinsurers in exam 6.

[carrytheCrøss]

oh, I didn't realize it was in 2001 also. What about 2005 #26 b. "contact of adhesion" I can't find that either although I must admit it sounds familiar..pehaps from insurers vs. reinsurers in exam 6.
This question is completely applicable from Wiening, Ch. 17.

[342am]

contract of adhesion is in mhyr CPCU right?

[2M]

It probably shows up in a couple places. It is definitely in the syllabus, I read it yesterday although I don't remember which book

[ReserveRage]

Weining Ch 13? That's not on the syllabus right? I do see it in Ch 8, although the concept of courts ruling ambiguities against the insurer is not directly referred to as teh "contract of adhesion doctrine." The mention of contract of adhesion in Ch 8 has nothiing to do with the answer to 2005 #26 b. I would think it would have to be reworded under the current syllabus although the concept itself is certainly fair game.

[carrytheCrøss]

Weining Ch 13? That's not on the syllabus right? I do see it in Ch 8, although the concept of courts ruling ambiguities against the insurer is not directly referred to as teh "contract of adhesion doctrine." The mention of contract of adhesion in Ch 8 has nothiing to do with the answer to 2005 #26 b. I would think it would have to be reworded under the current syllabus although the concept itself is certainly fair game.That is my bad; I meant Ch. 17. I labeled that part of my notes wrong. Looking back at the text (17.12), I see there are six factors mentioned in determining whether an insured falls within the "sophisticated insured" rule. So all of this question is fair game.

[ReserveRage]

Yeah I found it in ch 9 of the Operations readings too. Such an annoyingly painful detail to test us on in a MC. I really hope we don't see questions like this.

[carrytheCrøss]

2006 13b

Anywhere in the surrent syllabus that defines the three elements of provng strict liability in tort ofr products liability???
Only ones we can rule out, I think, from the 2006 exam is part of 12 (can only find two types of EL suits) and 13b.

[2M]

2005#33??

[carrytheCrøss]

2005#33??
I agree, except some of part c is still legit (Myhr and Markham, Ch. 10).

[ReserveRage]

I agree, except some of part c is still legit (Myhr and Markham, Ch. 10).

I would think part b is valid too. Under Claims-Made Trigger in 13.14 from the Commercial readings.

[NewTubaBoy]

I'm pretty sure 2004 # 34 is a Lange question that isn't covered in Plamer.

[ReserveRage]

I'm pretty sure 2004 # 34 is a Lange question that isn't covered in Plamer.

I agree for the most part and remember thinking that when I went through the 2004 exam. I think you can make a case that part b, Pure Premium method, is still valid though. I think it could be one of those "open ended questions" especially since the model solution is a fact that is stressed several times in the article.

[ReserveRage]

2002 #24. Where is this question in the current syllabus? I feel like I remember reading it but can't find it.

[2M]

2002 #24. Where is this question in the current syllabus? I feel like I remember reading it but can't find it.

It is certainly there in Weining

[carrytheCrøss]

2002 #24. Where is this question in the current syllabus? I feel like I remember reading it but can't find it.
It is certainly there in Weining
Wiening, Ch. 8 under Nine Fundamental Assumptions about Insurance. Could probably use #3 and #4 to addresss this question.

[geezer73]

Is there another more up to date thread like this? I'm not sure how much the 08 syllabus changes would affect this (if any).:toast:

[2M]

We should probably make a new one, this one is a lso a bit disorganized