C130 Exam Dumps - IIC Chartered Insurance Professional (CIP) Questions and Answers

In a direct compensation property damage arrangement, each insured claims from their own insurer for the portion of vehicle damage for which they are not at fault. The absence of collision coverage does not prevent recovery of the not-at-fault portion where direct compensation applies. Miro’s total physical damage is $4,000 and he is 50 percent at fault. Therefore, he can recover the 50 percent not-at-fault portion: $4,000 × 50 percent = $2,000. Stephanie’s total physical damage is $2,000 and she is also 50 percent at fault. She can recover $2,000 × 50 percent = $1,000 from her own insurer. Option B and option C incorrectly involve recovery from both insurers, which is not how direct compensation is structured. Option D wrongly assumes full recovery despite the assigned fault and then subrogation between insurers. The correct settlement follows the fault percentage and each insured’s own insurer pays the recoverable not-at-fault portion. References/topics: Automobile Insurance; direct compensation property damage, fault apportionment, collision coverage, automobile physical damage claims.

The coinsurance requirement is calculated by multiplying the property value by the required coinsurance percentage. Brenda’s house is valued at $250,000, and the coinsurance clause is 80 percent. Therefore, the required amount of insurance is $250,000 × 80 percent = $200,000. Brenda carries $220,000, which is more than the required $200,000. Because she satisfies the coinsurance requirement, no coinsurance penalty applies. The loss is $150,000, and the policy limit is $220,000, so the insurer would pay the full $150,000 loss, subject to any deductible not shown in the question. Option A incorrectly applies a penalty where none is due. Option C does not match the coinsurance formula or the loss amount. Option D is the total policy limit, not the amount of the loss. This calculation shows why brokers must explain coinsurance clearly: the penalty applies only when the insured carries less than the required percentage of value. References/topics: Property Insurance—Wordings; coinsurance formula, insurance to value, partial loss settlement, property limits.

If a claim is reported by someone who is not named on the policy, the intermediary should attempt to discuss the matter with the client. The broker must protect confidentiality, verify authority, and avoid disclosing policy information to an unauthorized person. At the same time, the report may still involve a valid loss, so the broker should not ignore it. Speaking with the named insured allows the intermediary to confirm whether the claim is legitimate, whether the reporting person has authority to act, and whether notice should be forwarded to the insurer. Contacting the police is not automatically required unless the facts suggest crime, injury, fraud, or legal reporting obligations. Sending a statement of claim is incorrect; that is a legal pleading, not a broker response. Adding the reporting party as an additional insured would be inappropriate without underwriting approval, insurable interest, and the insured’s instruction. The correct claims-service approach is controlled communication, verification, documentation, and prompt reporting once authority and facts are confirmed. References/topics: Claims; claim reporting, confidentiality, named insured authority, broker communication, claims intake procedure.