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. On March 14, rioters burn a truck on site: 180,000 euros, undisputed. On March 18, the industrial zone is closed by decree and the plant stops for five and a half months, for 7.4 million of lost margin. Why does the 7.4 million not follow the 180,000?
Because business interruption follows from insured physical damage, and the plant did not stop because a truck burned, but because the zone was closed
The natural reasoning chains three accurate findings, covered peril, covered damage, therefore business interruption, and breaks in the middle: it follows from the damage, not to the peril, and the chain is checked link by link. The 180,000 euros are due, and nothing connects them to the 7.4 million. The answer shifting to expropriation is a tempting expansive reading: the state did cause the loss, but it took neither the asset nor control of the asset, and closing a zone is a public order measure. The limit does not enter the discussion until causation is established.
Glossary entry →2. The policy's denial-of-access extension is capped at thirty days and conditional on physical damage within a five hundred meter radius. What does it actually do?
It reimports the physical trigger one step away: the damage may have struck the neighborhood rather than the insured, and the radius and the cap in days decide the amount
The extension does not cross the physical damage boundary, it moves it a few hundred meters, and that nuance decides the whole amount. Here the truck burned on site probably satisfies the radius condition, but the thirty-day cap brings a five-and-a-half-month loss back to a monthly order of magnitude: a factor of five between claimed and owed, with no dispute about the facts. Both answers removing the damage condition describe cover the market rarely sells and this policy does not carry.
Glossary entry →3. In June, the government characterizes the events as an insurrection and deploys the army. What does that characterization threaten, and why is it more than a word?
The whole cover: riot, insurrection and war are intensities of the same phenomenon, and an exclusion resting on a factual test catches most contemporary conflicts
Everything depends on the wording, and that is the divide to keep in mind: a war exclusion resting on a formal declaration almost never bites, because states no longer declare war, whereas one resting on a factual test catches most real situations. Answering that only a formal declaration counts assumes the first wording in a file where nothing indicates it. And the name is given after the fact, by people with an interest: which is why it must be documented now that police and not the army intervened in March, that the courts kept sitting, and that the curfew was a public order measure.
Glossary entry →4. The module asserts that most political loss occurs without anything being broken. What follows for a conventional political violence policy?
It covers the visible and least expensive fraction, and that is the gap between what one believes one bought and what will respond
A cover built on physical damage is designed for a world where the peril breaks something, and contemporary political risk mostly ruins through measures that break nothing: curfews, zone closures, export bans. The insured therefore buys cover that will respond to the most visible and least heavy part of its exposure. The policy is well made and has simply hit the limit of its architecture, and knowing that limit is what allows one to seek extensions rather than discover the gap at the claim. Substituting an expropriation cover would be covering another fact, not the same one differently.
Glossary entry →5. What prevents characterizing the zone closure as expropriation, given the state caused it and the loss is considerable?
That the state took neither the asset nor control of the asset: the plant remains the insured's property, recovered intact on reopening
Expropriation, creeping included, is defined by deprivation of the asset or of its control, and a temporary closure does not deprive: the insured reopens and finds its plant. The answer requiring a formal act is the most instructive to dismiss, because it describes exactly what creeping expropriation does not require: an accumulation of measures can expropriate with no decree at all. So it is the result that counts, loss of effective control, and it is not reached here. Duration could change that: an indefinite closure draining the asset of its economic substance changes nature, and the module invites watching for that tipping point rather than declaring it.
Glossary entry →