ANSWERS-CH27 - hazard clause did not cause the damage to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CHAPTER 27 INSURANCE ANSWERS TO CHAPTER 27 True-False Multiple Choice 1. T 2. F 3. T 4. F 5. T 6. F 7. T 8. F 9. F 10. T 11. d 12. c 13. b 14. d 15. c 16. a 17. b 18. d 19. d 20. a Short Essay 21. The contract is most likely enforceable. Most courts would hold that an unreasonable delay in notifying the insured of rejection of the policy, along with the fact the insurance company kept the check, would constitute an acceptance sufficient to create the contract. The estate would have to pay the balance due on the premium. 22. In view of how courts normally apply increase of hazard clauses, No-Risk is correct. The insured's violation of the increase of hazard clause relieves the insurer of the duty to pay the insured's claim for property damage stemming from an otherwise covered peril, even when the condition that placed the insured in violation of the increase of
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: hazard clause did not cause the damage to the insured's property. 23. In all likelihood, King will neither be obligated to defend Portly in the battery case nor be required to pay out damages awarded to Boorish. Liability insurance policies normally do not furnish the insured coverage for wrongful intentional conduct such as battery. In order to be safe and to insulate itself against possible breach of contract claims by Portly, King may be likely to file a declaratory judgment action in which it asks the court to rule that its policy does not apply to the Portly-Boorish incident. Business Law and the Regulatory Environment, 11E 89 Answers to Student Study Guide and Workbook Questions 90...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/30/2010 for the course BUSLAW 301 taught by Professor Abu during the Spring '09 term at Abu Dhabi University.

Page1 / 2

ANSWERS-CH27 - hazard clause did not cause the damage to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online