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. At the renewal following an indemnity payment, the market offers either a doubled premium or a deductible multiplied by three. How are these two proposals not saying the same thing?
A raised premium revises the PRICE of the protection, a tripled deductible transfers part of it back to the insured and therefore changes its NATURE: on low frequency matter, tripling the deductible often amounts to removing cover for the most probable class of losses while keeping the one that will not happen
Only one of the two terms changes what is being bought, and it is the one the discussion treats as an adjustment variable. The proposal adding premium and deductible in expected cost performs a sound calculation on matter where it is worth nothing: frequency is too low for an expectation to describe what will happen to THIS insured. The one pointing out that a deductible is only paid on a loss reasons in cash terms and misses that the deductible bites on exactly the most probable class of losses. The one that keeps the stated premium names the real motive behind the offer and takes it for an advantage: it is the carrier that gains from the cost being invisible.
Glossary entry · franchise2. An indemnified insured observes that the market has raised its terms across the whole country, including for operators that reported nothing. What should be understood from that movement?
That political risk is rated by EXPOSURE and not by individual experience, frequency being too low for one insured to constitute a statistic on its own: a loss updates the market's view of the country, and the movement shows up for everyone exposed there
Two mechanisms overlap at renewal and they are handled differently: the country one, about which the insured can do nothing, and the one bearing on the insured, where it can do a great deal. Confusing them means negotiating the wrong one. The proposal producing a nil loss record over ten years brings the document one would bring in a high frequency line, and it proves nothing here: ten years without a loss is the ORDINARY case for a risk whose frequency is measured in decades. The one calling it a disguised sanction confuses a revision of appetite for a geography with a judgment passed on a person.
Glossary entry · risque-pays3. Leaving price aside, which renewal term decides what remains covered in a year where something has already happened?
Reinstatement of the limit after a loss, which says whether cover is restored once it has been used and at what price: almost nobody asks for it at renewal, and it becomes decisive when a crisis does not stop at the first event
A limit is an amount, but a CONSUMED limit is nothing at all, and the question of whether it is restored only arises once it is too late to negotiate it. The three other terms are genuinely negotiated and appear in the module: the indemnity period bounds the computation of a loss, the stability clause bounds a price revision, the circle of knowledgeable persons bears on disclosure. None addresses what is asked, which is the fate of a loss coming after another in the same year.
Glossary entry · agregat4. An information asymmetry works in the insured's favor at the renewal following a loss. Which one, and why is it rarely used?
It knows what has CHANGED since the loss, in its protection, in its local partner's governance, in its procedures, and those elements only reach the market if it presents them: a renewal file that repeats the previous one with new dates leaves the rating to be done on the single fact the other party knows, the loss
Presenting what has changed is not communication, it is bringing the only new information the carrier does not hold, and a file that does not carry it gets rated on a single unfavorable fact. The proposal invoking the reinsurance calendar names a real lever, covered elsewhere in the course, and it is not an asymmetry in the insured's favor: that calendar is public and the carrier knows it better than the insured does. The one invoking competitors' terms describes information the insured does not have either.
Glossary entry · declaration-de-risque5. Cover cannot be replaced, and the market rarely expresses that with a refusal. What does it look like, and what move reveals it?
The withdrawal comes through price and terms: a moved deductible, a reduced limit, an exclusion of the very measure that has just struck, and the policy carries the same name without covering the risk that worries the buyer. The move is to compare the two TEXTS line by line, not the two premiums
A no is visible; a policy carrying the same heading and no longer covering the same thing is visible only if it is read. That reading is precisely what calendar pressure drops first, and it is what makes a disguised withdrawal effective. The three other descriptions name real frictions in a placement, and all of them can be observed without opening the policy: that is what separates them from the case described, where the document is the only place the withdrawal is written.
Glossary entry · souscription