浏览所有题目

列明风险（也称指定风险）保单只对保单中明确列出的风险提供保障。开放风险或特殊形式保单的逻辑则相反：除明确除外的风险以外，承保所有直接物理损失。

在列明风险保单下，被保险人须证明损失由承保风险造成。而在开放风险或特殊形式保单下，保单被推定承保所有直接物理损失，因此举证责任转移至保险公司，由其证明适用某项除外条款。

传统的基本形式风险包括火灾、闪电、风暴或冰雹、爆炸、烟雾、飞机或车辆、暴乱或民众骚乱、故意破坏，以及喷淋泄漏（有时还包括地陷和火山活动）。洪水、地震、战争和核灾害不属于基本形式风险，而是常见的除外责任；磨损与固有缺陷也属于除外项。

广泛形式保留基本形式的所有风险，并增加五项额外风险：坠落物；冰、雪或冰雹的重量；管道、供热或空调系统中水或蒸汽的意外排放或溢出；供热或蒸汽系统突然意外的撕裂、开裂、烧毁或膨胀；以及冰冻。洪水、地震、战争和磨损在所有标准保单中均为除外。

洪水是标准财产保单的标准除外责任之一，同时还包括地动、战争、核灾害、被保险人的故意行为、磨损以及法规要求。烟雾、冰雹和故意破坏在基本、广泛和特殊形式保单下均为承保风险。

不动产指土地及永久附着其上的结构或固定装置。动产指未永久附着、可移动的财产，例如散置工具、库存和可拆除的设备。建筑物及螺栓固定的烤箱属于不动产或固定装置；可移动的搅拌碗属于动产。

加州保险法第2051条将标准赔偿额度定为实际现金价值，其定义实质上是修复或更换财产所需成本减去公平合理的物理折旧。免去折旧扣除的重置成本保险须通过批注或保单格式明确加入。

重置成本保险按同类同质的新材料修复或更换所需的成本赔付，不扣除物理折旧，受保单限额和损失赔付条款条件的约束。实际现金价值则会扣除折旧，仅赔付折旧后的价值。

应保 = 80% × 500,000 = 400,000美元。实保 = 300,000美元。比例 = 300,000 ÷ 400,000 = 0.75。扣除免赔额前的赔付 = 0.75 × 100,000 = 75,000美元。再扣除1,000美元免赔额，保险公司赔付74,000美元。关键在于：低于共同保险要求投保会带来实实在在的处罚，即使保单限额远高于损失，被保险人也拿不到全额100,000美元。

共同保险条款促使被保险人按接近财产真实价值的限额投保，通常为80%、90%或100%。若出险时被保险人投保金额低于规定百分比，赔付将按（实保/应保）比例减少。这并非按50/50分摊每次损失，也不会免除免赔额。

标准或联合抵押权人条款在保险公司与抵押权人之间形成一份独立合同。只要抵押权人在知悉占用或风险变更后给予通知，并支付任何到期保费，借款人的行为或疏忽（如失实陈述或空置）均不会使抵押权人的权利失效。开放式或简易抵押权人条款不给予贷款人这种独立保护。

开放式或简易抵押权人条款使贷款人仅成为损失受款人。贷款人的受偿权完全依赖于借款人的权利，因此任何使借款人索赔失效的行为或疏忽，也会使贷款人的权利失效。标准或联合条款则形成一份独立合同，即使借款人的索赔不成立，贷款人仍受保护。

宽松扩展条款规定：若保险公司在保单期内（或保单生效日之前的较短窗口内）扩大保单格式且不收取额外保费，则扩大后的保障会自动适用于现有保单。这是单向条款：使被保险人无需重新核保即可享受改进。

典型空置条款规定：一旦建筑物连续空置超过60天，若干列明风险（通常包括故意破坏、玻璃破碎、水损、盗窃和意图盗窃）的保障即被暂停，对其他承保损失的赔付按规定比例（常为15%）减少。考试的正确答案不是保障直接终止，而是按上述特定方式受限。

成对成套条款防止被保险人在只有一部分损坏时按整对或整套被毁获得赔付。保险公司按价值减损（损失前该对的价值减去剩余部分的价值）赔付，或可将该对恢复，但不按整对全损处理。

保险公司在足额赔付被保险人受损物品的保险价值后，残值权使其可占有该受损财产并通过出售收回剩余价值。代位求偿则不同：它使保险公司可向造成损失的有过错第三方追偿。

代位求偿是保险公司在赔付被保险人之后，以被保险人之名向造成损失的第三方追偿（限于已赔付金额）的权利。被保险人不得损害该权利（例如，未经保险公司同意就免除责任方），也不得就同一损失获得两次赔偿。

按比例分摊条款使各保单按其限额占总适用限额的比例分担损失。总限额 = 200,000 + 300,000 = 500,000美元。A赔付 200/500 x 50,000 = 20,000美元；B赔付 300/500 x 50,000 = 30,000美元。等份分摊（contribution by equal shares）会让每份保单平均分担直至较小限额，是另一种分摊方式。

在等份分摊方法下，两份保单按相等的金额承担损失，直到限额较低的保单耗尽；其后限额较高的保单单独继续赔付，直至其剩余限额。该方法在商业责任险中常见；按限额比例分摊则是财产保险中的常见方法。

建筑法规要求费用——按更新法规增加的建造成本、拆除未损部分的费用，以及未损部分的价值损失——在标准财产保单中属于除外。须附加法规要求批注才能将其纳入保障。

标准财产保单除外地动（含地震）、洪水、战争、核灾害、被保险人故意行为、磨损以及法规要求。地震与洪水通常需要单独保单（如CEA地震保单或NFIP洪水保单）。火灾、闪电、烟雾、故意破坏、暴乱、喷淋泄漏和风暴均为承保风险。

ACV赔付为修复或更换的成本减去公平合理的物理折旧。RC赔付为以同类同质材料修复或更换的成本，不扣除折旧，通常以实际更换受损财产并受保单限额为条件。RC赔付通常先按ACV支付，被保险人实际更换后再支付折旧部分。

Actual cash value equals the current replacement cost of the property minus depreciation for age, wear, and obsolescence. It reflects what the property is actually worth at the time of loss, not what it would cost to buy new. Replacement cost coverage, by contrast, pays to repair or replace with new property of like kind and quality without deducting depreciation, subject to policy conditions.

The coinsurance formula is: (amount carried / amount required) x loss = payment. The amount required is 80% of $500,000 = $400,000. The amount carried is $300,000. So $300,000 / $400,000 = 0.75, and 0.75 x $100,000 = $75,000. Because the insured carried only 75% of the required amount, the insurer pays 75% of the loss and the insured absorbs the rest as a penalty for underinsurance.

Under a named-perils (specified perils) form, only perils listed in the policy are covered, so the insured must prove the loss was caused by one of those named perils. Under an open-perils (all-risk) form, coverage applies to any cause of loss not excluded, so the burden shifts to the insurer to prove an exclusion applies. This distinction is a core property concept and does not vary by state.

A deductible is the portion of a loss the insured pays before the insurer pays. It reduces premiums by eliminating small claims that are costly to process, and it gives the insured a stake in preventing losses. Deductibles do not guarantee profit and are a separate concept from coinsurance, which addresses the adequacy of the amount of insurance carried.

An other-insurance clause, commonly using a pro rata method, coordinates payment when more than one policy covers the same loss so the insured is indemnified but not overpaid. Each insurer pays its share based on the proportion of total coverage it provides. Coinsurance addresses whether enough insurance was purchased, and subrogation lets an insurer recover from a responsible third party after paying a claim.

Actual cash value is replacement cost minus depreciation. The roof had used 15 of its 20 years, so 75 percent of its life was gone: $48,000 x 0.75 = $36,000 of depreciation, leaving $48,000 - $36,000 = $12,000. Paying the full $48,000 would be a replacement cost settlement, and $36,000 is the depreciation itself rather than the value that remained.

Depreciation measures the value the property has already used up: its age, its physical wear, and how much serviceable life was left the moment before the loss. Premium paid is irrelevant to valuation, because premium buys the promise rather than measuring the loss. The proportion of the limit a loss represents belongs to the coinsurance test, which asks whether enough insurance was bought, not what the carpet was worth.

A replacement cost policy normally advances the actual cash value and holds back the recoverable depreciation until the property is actually repaired or replaced. The advance here is $18,000 of actual cash value less the $1,000 deductible, or $17,000, and the $12,000 gap between $30,000 and $18,000 is the recoverable depreciation still held back. Paying $29,000 up front would release that holdback before any work was done.

Replacement cost settlement is conditioned on actually repairing or replacing the damaged property, so until the work is done the insurer owes only actual cash value. Cashing the actual cash value draft settles nothing further by itself, and a proof of loss documents the claim rather than releasing the holdback. An insured who takes the money and never rebuilds keeps the actual cash value and loses the depreciation.

Functional replacement cost pays to restore the property with modern, readily available materials that do the same job, rather than duplicating obsolete or ornamental construction. It keeps the amount of insurance realistic for buildings whose faithful reproduction would cost far more than the building is worth. Reproducing the plaster and tin is straight replacement cost, and taking depreciation off is an actual cash value settlement, which is a different valuation basis.

Insurable value is the cost to replace the structure, and the lot survives the fire that destroys the house, so there is no loss on the land to indemnify. That is why a purchase price and an insurable value rarely match: market value bundles in the land and the neighborhood, while insurable value does not. No property policy issues separate land coverage, and the mortgage clause protects a lender's financial interest rather than the ground itself.

Dwelling coverage is written on the cost to rebuild the structure, which is the contractor's $310,000 figure, because the $130,000 lot is not exposed to fire. Insuring to the $420,000 purchase price buys coverage the owner can never collect, since indemnity limits recovery to the actual loss. The $290,000 figure is the price less the lot, which is a real estate calculation rather than a rebuilding cost and understates what construction would take.

The coinsurance formula is the amount carried divided by the amount required, times the loss. The amount required is 90 percent of $1,200,000, or $1,080,000, and $810,000 / $1,080,000 = 0.75, so 0.75 x $150,000 = $112,500. Multiplying the loss by the 90 percent coinsurance figure gives $135,000 and is the most common wrong turn, because the clause compares the limit carried with the amount required, not the loss with the percentage.

The clause required 80 percent of $750,000, or $600,000, and the insured carried $675,000, so the coinsurance test is met and there is no penalty: $95,000 - $2,500 = $92,500. Comparing the $675,000 limit with the building's full $750,000 value produces $85,500 and is wrong, because the ratio is built on the amount required, not on total value. Paying $95,000 satisfies coinsurance but forgets the deductible.

Run the coinsurance formula on the loss first, then subtract the deductible. The amount required is 80 percent of $800,000, or $640,000, and $480,000 / $640,000 = 0.75, so 0.75 x $80,000 = $60,000, less the $5,000 deductible = $55,000. Taking the deductible off before applying the ratio gives $56,250 and understates the underinsurance penalty, while $60,000 is the figure of a candidate who stops before the deductible.

A percentage deductible is figured on the stated base, here 5 percent of the $600,000 amount of insurance, or $30,000, and that comes off the loss: $125,000 - $30,000 = $95,000. Taking 5 percent of the loss instead gives $118,750 and is the classic error, because this deductible grows with the amount of insurance rather than with the size of the claim. The $30,000 figure is the deductible itself, the share the insured absorbs.

A flat deductible is a fixed dollar figure taken off each covered loss, while a percentage deductible is computed from a stated base such as the amount of insurance, so raising the limit raises the deductible with it. It is not an annual aggregate; like a flat deductible it applies to each occurrence. And a deductible only reduces what the insurer pays, which leaves the adequacy of the limit to the coinsurance clause.

An open-perils form insures risk of direct physical loss except as excluded or limited, so once the insured shows a fortuitous physical loss, the insurer carries the burden of proving that an exclusion removes it. A named-perils form reverses that arrangement: nothing is covered until the insured shows the cause of loss appears on the policy's list. Requiring the insured to name the peril applies the named-perils rule to the wrong form.

Direct loss is the physical damage the peril does to the property itself; indirect or consequential loss is the financial harm that follows from that damage, such as lost net income and continuing expenses during the shutdown. Business income coverage exists precisely because the property forms pay for the burned kitchen and stop there. Calling it a liability loss confuses harm the owner suffers with damages the owner owes to someone else.

Proximate cause asks what set in motion an unbroken chain of events leading to the damage, and when a covered peril starts that chain the resulting damage is treated as loss by that peril. Lightning is the proximate cause here, so water used to fight the fire it started is a covered consequence even though water by itself is not a listed peril. Treating the last event in the chain as the cause would defeat most fire claims, since smoke and water do much of the damage.

Pro rata sharing splits a loss in proportion to each policy's limit against the total insurance in force. The $200,000 policy is 40 percent of the $500,000 total, and 40 percent of $80,000 is $32,000, while the larger policy pays the remaining $48,000. Splitting the loss evenly at $40,000 ignores that the limits differ. Either way the insured collects the $80,000 once and not twice, which is what an other-insurance clause is for.

Insurable interest means standing to suffer a financial loss if the property is damaged, and a mortgagee's loan is secured by that building, so the lender plainly qualifies. A seller gives up that interest at closing, which is why a prior owner cannot collect on a fire the following year. A losing bidder and an adjuster have a business relationship with the property rather than a financial stake in whether it survives.

A limit is a ceiling and not a promise: the insurer pays the loss as the valuation clause measures it, up to that figure and no further. An insured who reads the limit as the amount payable for any covered loss expects a full-limit check for a broken window. Nor is the limit the insurer's opinion of value; choosing an adequate limit is the insured's job, which is the behavior the coinsurance clause polices.

A blanket limit applies to all the described property at all the described locations, so the insured is not penalised when values move from one warehouse to another. Specific insurance is the opposite arrangement, a separate stated limit for each building or class of property, and it is the one that leaves a location short when stock shifts. Blanket writing does not delete coinsurance either; the test is simply run against the combined values on the statement of values.

Under a blanket limit the coinsurance test runs against the combined values on the statement of values, not building by building. The amount required is 80 percent of $1,200,000, or $960,000, and only $900,000 was carried, so the insurer pays $900,000 / $960,000 x $250,000 = $234,375. Dividing by the full $1,200,000 of values gives $187,500 and skips the 80 percent step, and multiplying the loss by 80 percent gives $200,000, which misreads the clause as a flat copayment.

Agreed value is written after the insured files a statement of values that the insurer accepts, and in exchange the coinsurance condition is suspended, so a partial loss is settled without any underinsurance penalty. It does not turn the policy into a promise to pay the limit for every loss: the loss is still measured and the deductible still applies. Automatic increases in the limit as costs climb are the work of an inflation guard, not of agreed value.

Because the agreed value provision suspends coinsurance, the climb in replacement cost creates no penalty: the insurer pays the $300,000 loss less the $10,000 deductible, or $290,000. Running a coinsurance ratio of $900,000 against the $1,050,000 value would produce about $257,143 before the deductible, and that penalty is exactly what the agreed value provision was bought to remove. Paying $300,000 forgets the deductible.

A stated amount is a ceiling the insured declares for hard-to-value property, and settlement is the smallest of that figure, the property's value at the time of loss, and what it costs to repair or replace the item. That is what separates it from agreed value, where the figure the insurer accepted is binding. Reading a stated amount as a guaranteed payout is the common misunderstanding, and it leaves an insured paying premium on a number no claim will ever produce.

An inflation guard raises the amount of insurance automatically during the term, so limits keep pace with construction costs and the insured stays near the amount coinsurance requires. It moves the limit only, leaving the deductible and the coinsurance condition alone. It also adds no money at claim time: whatever the limit has grown to on the day of loss is still the ceiling on what the insurer will pay.

Vacancy means the building is empty of the contents and the activity needed to carry on customary operations, while unoccupancy means it is still furnished and equipped but nobody is present for a time. The difference matters to underwriters because an empty building invites vandalism, undetected water damage and late discovery of fire, and property forms restrict certain perils once a vacancy has run long enough. A family away on a long trip leaves a home unoccupied, not vacant.

The standard mortgage clause creates a separate contract between the insurer and the lender, so the mortgagee can still be paid its interest when the owner's own claim is denied for something like arson or misrepresentation. The lender is also entitled to its own notice of cancellation or non-renewal and may pay the premium to keep coverage alive. That independence is what distinguishes it from a bare loss payee, whose rights rise and fall with the owner's.

Appraisal is a valuation mechanic rather than a coverage forum: each side names an appraiser, the two appraisers select an umpire, and agreement by any two of the three sets the amount of the loss. Coverage questions, such as whether an exclusion applies or a condition was breached, stay with the parties and, if it comes to that, the courts. An insurer that pays an appraisal award normally keeps its right to contest coverage on other grounds.

Salvage is the insurer's right to take and dispose of damaged property once it has paid the loss in full, and the proceeds offset what the claim cost. It is not abandonment: property policies state that the insured may not abandon property to the insurer and demand a total loss payment on it. Subrogation is a different recovery, aimed at the third party whose negligence caused the loss rather than at the damaged goods.

Property policies require the insured to do nothing after a loss that impairs the insurer's right of recovery, because the insurer expects to step into the insured's place and pursue whoever caused the fire. Signing away the claim against the welding contractor destroys that right, and the insurer may cut or refuse payment to the extent it was prejudiced. An insured cannot settle privately with the wrongdoer and still collect the whole loss, which would be a double recovery.

The pair or set clause measures the difference between the value of the set before the loss and the value of what is left: $2,400 - $1,500 = $900. That captures the loss in value the survivors suffer from no longer being a set. Paying one quarter of the set value gives $600 and ignores that damage entirely, while the insured cannot force the insurer to pay the full $2,400 and take the three good chairs away.

A partial loss is measured by what it costs to repair or replace the damaged portion, valued as the policy's valuation clause requires, while under the policy's own valuation terms a total loss is settled at the lesser of the property's value and the limit, which is why an underinsured owner feels the limit at a total loss. Coinsurance is tested on partial losses as usual, and the deductible comes off either kind of loss. Purchase price does not govern, because it carries land and market factors the policy does not insure.

Two caps run at the same time. Five percent of the $360,000 Coverage A limit is $18,000, far more than this loss needs, so the per-item cap controls: six trees at $500 each is $3,000. The $7,200 figure is the trees' actual value and ignores the per-item limit, while $18,000 is the outer ceiling the loss never reaches. A percentage sublimit sets the boundary, and an inner per-item limit can bind long before it.

The full reporting condition limits recovery to the proportion the last reported value bears to the value that should have been reported: $200,000 / $250,000 = 80 percent, and 80 percent of $100,000 is $80,000. Reporting forms exist so a business with a heavy peak season pays premium on the values it actually holds month by month instead of insuring the seasonal high all year. Under-reporting buys the cheaper premium and the smaller recovery with it.