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. A three year policy is cancellable annually by either party. What has the insured actually bought?
A one year policy renewed twice, of which only the insured is committed for three: the periodic cancellation right requires no reason, and it is the place to read before the stated term
The asymmetry is not always intended: it comes from a comparison table showing a term and not a right, and it reads in thirty seconds in the contract. The proposal tying the exit to a disagreement on price describes the premium review clause, a neighboring and distinct mechanism: that one lets the carrier STAY while changing the price, which produces the same effect by leaving the insured to go of its own accord. The proposal opening the exit only to the insured reverses the real asymmetry.
Glossary entry · souscription2. An insurer invokes an increase in risk to cancel mid term. What does a well advised insured ask for?
What changed and WHEN: a country's deterioration is a slope and a slope has no date, so what gets produced is often a rating agency note rather than a fact postdating inception
The condition for an increase in risk bears on a change of circumstances POSTDATING inception and objective, therefore datable: that date is what the request seeks, and it is what is most often missing. The proposal demanding the internal grid aims at the right reasoning and asks for a document the carrier will not produce, which leaves the discussion without an object. The one invoking aggregation names a real cause of cancellation, covered elsewhere in the course, and it bears on the hidden motive rather than on the condition the contract requires.
Glossary entry · risque-pays3. The policy is cancelled while a series of measures is still running. Which worry is well founded, and which is not?
A triggering event occurring during the cover period remains vested and its handling continues past expiry, which lays a widespread worry to rest; what stays well founded bears on LATER facts, a creeping expropriation whose policy stops halfway through the series leaving a chronology cut in two of which only one half is covered
The distinction turns on the DATE of the triggering event and not on the date of cancellation, and it separates a widespread and unfounded fear from a rarely voiced and real one. The proposal ending the handling at contract expiry applies to an already reported loss a rule that holds only for facts still to come. The one pushing the effect to renewal confuses mid term cancellation with non renewal, which are two different mechanisms covered by two different modules.
Glossary entry · expropriation-nationalisation4. An insured receives a cancellation notice on a country that is deteriorating. Where should it start?
Check whether a triggering event has ALREADY occurred and report it before expiry: a measure judged premature to report, a refusal to renew a permit, a transfer request left unanswered, all change status when cover is about to end, since after expiry they can no longer be reported anywhere
Reporting them costs little and staying silent costs everything, and it is the calendar that makes the move urgent: after expiry those facts can no longer be reported anywhere. The proposal asking the carrier for the list of reportable facts reverses the burden and addresses the party that has just chosen to leave. The one that replaces first holds sound reasoning on substance and wrong reasoning on order: an incoming carrier does not cover a fact predating its inception, and those facts belong only to the policy that is ending.
Glossary entry · declaration-de-risque5. What is usefully negotiated against the risk of the insurer leaving mid term?
A long notice period, six months rather than thirty days, which does not stop the carrier leaving and gives time to replace elsewhere, which is often what really counts, and costs less than the option given up by a carrier that waives its exit
A non cancellation clause exists and is negotiable, and its price is exactly that of the option the carrier gives up: it is not out of reach, it is simply expensive for a result that six months of notice often delivers. The proposal capping the premium review addresses one of the three exit mechanisms and leaves the other two intact. The one trading duration against a reciprocal undertaking describes a real bargain and addresses the symmetry of commitment rather than the time the insured will need.
Glossary entry · franchise