Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. Quoting higher and higher until the client walks away has a name in the trade. Which defect of that practice is worst for the insurer itself?
A dissuasive price can be ACCEPTED: a broker that must place the file will place it, a client with no alternative will sign, and the insurer ends up with a risk it did not want at a price that looks comfortable
Dissuasive pricing assumes the client declines, and nothing guarantees the client declines: that reversal is what makes it an underwriting defect and not a commercial clumsiness. A comfortable price on a genuinely uninsurable risk is not comfortable. The module names two other defects, destroying information and damaging the relationship, and they concern the market and the broker rather than the insurer itself. The answer on acceptance statistics describes a management nuisance. The one on disguised refusal to deal invokes a legal grievance that is not the engine of the reasoning. The one on wasted time is true and minor, and would apply equally to a plain declination.
Glossary entry · tarification-exposition2. The module sorts each submission into three families. What is the middle one, and how is it recognized?
What gets CONDITIONED: an identified, correctable shortcoming calling for a condition precedent, a sub-limit, or cover starting on the date the fix will be done
The three families are what gets priced, what gets conditioned and what gets declined, and it is the middle one that avoids dissuasive pricing: a correctable shortcoming calls for neither a price nor a declination, it calls for a date. The three other answers name real mechanisms, all foreign to this sorting, because they answer the question of CAPACITY and not of motive. Co-insurance and reinsurance share a risk already decided acceptable. Adjournment describes a processing state and not a decision, and is in any case what an underwriter does while waiting for a missing document.
Glossary entry · clause-exclusion3. Among the configurations that get declined, which is not a shortcoming of the insured, and why does confusing them send the worst message?
Dependency on a third party the insurer already carries heavily: that is a fact of its portfolio and not a judgment on the risk, and confusing them leads a company to believe it is badly run when it merely shares a host with three hundred other insureds
Two of the four configurations are shortcomings of the insured and are voiced as conditions to meet; two are facts of the portfolio or of the state of the world and the client can do nothing about them. The untested backup and the missing inventory are shortcomings of the insured, and the two answers excusing them by means or an outgoing provider describe real circumstances without changing the nature of the shortcoming: it is for the insured to fix them, and the declination is framed accordingly. The unnoticed compromise is indeed a fact of the state of the world, and it is the nearest miss; yet it is not what the module highlights, because a recent audit reduces it and the message to the client carries no sting.
Glossary entry · accumulation-cumul4. What must a useful declination contain, and why does that candor cost less than people think?
The reason, whether it is correctable, and the condition that would reopen the file, including "none" when the reason is portfolio accumulation: a broker told the line is closed goes elsewhere without resentment, while a broker quoted three times the market price will tell the story for two years
A named reason is what lets the broker learn something and the market correct; a figure teaches nothing. The answer on a reference quotation reproduces the very defect to be avoided, since it passes on a price instead of a reason. The one steering to a competitor describes a market courtesy, real and unrelated to what the declination must say about this file. The one recommending a neutral formula is the most tempting for anyone afraid to commit, and it produces exactly the result the module fights: the broker comes back next year with the same file, and nothing has been corrected.
Glossary entry · bonne-foi5. Why is a declination a decision that gets reviewed, and what does counting declinations by reason reveal?
Systematic declination of a class of risks becomes a portfolio policy nobody deliberated: counting by reason and reviewing quarterly is the only way to know whether you are underwriting a market or withdrawing from it without saying so
A run of individual decisions produces a strategy nobody formulated, and that drift is what counting makes visible. The answer on calibrating the rate table reduces declination to a pricing problem, which the module precisely separates from declining. The one on training teams describes a possible conclusion of a review, not what it reveals. The one invoking a regulatory requirement invents an obligation and shifts the subject to compliance, when the stake is knowing what you are doing with your portfolio.
Glossary entry · sinistralite-attritionnelle