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. Which asymmetry produces everything else in this module?
A policy's limit applies PER INSURED, while the insurer's reinsurance protection most often applies PER EVENT, across all insureds: a carrier that wrote four hundred million euro policies in one country must pay four hundred million if the same decree hits them together, while its own cover reimburses only one layer above one retention
It carries the gap NET, and that gap appears in no document its insureds can read: that is why this module looks at the loss from the insurer's side, and why it is useful to the insured precisely for that reason. The answer about mismatched renewal dates names another real gap, dealt with in the module on reinsurance and underwriting. The one invoking insureds' mutual ignorance describes a consequence and not a cause: they are unaware of each other, and that would change nothing if their limits were counted like their insurer's.
Glossary entry · traite-excedent-sinistres2. Do the measures amount to one event or several? Who has an interest in settling it, and which way?
The characterization changes NOTHING for what each insured receives, since each has its own limit; it changes everything for what the INSURER recovers in reinsurance, so it is the insurer, not the insured, that has an interest in settling it one way
A single March 14 decree applied the same day to four concessions looks like one event; four separate orders taken over three months look like four. The answer giving the interest to the insured confuses this question, which arises BETWEEN insureds, with the linked-claims clause that operates inside its own policy and where its limit really is at stake. The one declaring that characterization follows from the facts is the comfortable position of someone who has not yet seen two defensible readings of the same facts, which is exactly what this module shows.
Glossary entry · agregat3. The insurer proposes the same triggering date to its four insureds. What practical effect can an insured suffer without understanding where it comes from?
The date that suits the reinsurance attachment is NOT NECESSARILY the one correct for its own file: one investor had lost control six months earlier through a series of particular measures, and accepting the proposed date without discussion can cost it a policy year, with that year's terms, limit and deductible
None of this is irregular and none of it appears in the insured's policy, which nonetheless must be known to understand the insistence it meets. The conduct that follows is to work up its date FOR ITSELF, with its own documents, and not to adopt out of convenience a date built for another purpose. The pro rata reduction and common limit answers describe aggregation mechanisms that exist ELSEWHERE, between layers of one program, and that do not operate between separate policies of different insureds.
Glossary entry · declaration-de-risque4. The linked-claims clause operates inside the insured's own policy. How?
It reduces a series of staggered measures to ONE LOSS, hence to one limit and one deductible: depending on the size of the loss it is favorable, leaving only one deductible to bear, or unfavorable, capping at one limit what several would have covered
This clause cuts both ways and which way must be checked for oneself: it is a calculation to run under both hypotheses BEFORE taking a position, not a rule to memorize. The answer calling it always unfavorable keeps the true half and gives up a real advantage on series of small measures. There is also a timing consequence discovered too late: if the series is reduced to a single originating cause, the loss is deemed to occur at THE DATE OF THAT CAUSE, and an investor hit by the last measure of a series begun before its policy can be told the loss predates its cover.
Glossary entry · franchise5. The module closes on an observation that reaches beyond its subject. Which one, and what is done with it?
That an insured reads its policy and believes it has read its risk, when it has read the half concerning it: the other half is ITS INSURER'S POSITION, which decides the speed, the rigor and the generosity with which its file is handled, and which appears in no document it holds. Deducing it from what it observes is a skill
An insurer simultaneously exposed on several insureds in one country works up files more slowly and settles less readily, NOT OUT OF ILL WILL but because its own cover is under discussion while it handles yours: knowing that avoids attributing to your file what belongs to a portfolio. The answer demanding to know the other insureds asks for information no carrier will give. The one avoiding exposed carriers at placement eliminates most specialists in a country, that is, precisely those who know how to write it.
Glossary entry · capacite-marche