To obtain your Level 2 license you must pass the CAIB 2 and the CAIB 3 exams. (BC, SK, MB)
Alberta requires CAIB 1, CAIB 2 and CAIB 3 completion to earn your level 2 license.
Use ILScorp’s online CAIB exam preparation courses, or Daily Assisted Virtual Classroom Programs to quickly prepare you for your Level 2 license.
CAIB Exam Prep Self-Study Online Video Courses are divided into easy-to-manage chapters with end of chapter quizzes. Each chapter includes 10-20 video clips of the instructor, along with easy to read text. A downloadable PDF workbook, key terms, a mock midterm and a mock final exam are also included. Once you purchase your subscription, you can begin taking your course immediately! All material is viewed online and is accessible 24/7.
MORE INFO ON CAIB EXAM PREP
How the CAIB exam preparation courses work
- Once you purchase, you can begin taking your course immediately! If you are a new subscriber, you will receive an automated username and password by email.
- All material is viewed online. All you need is an internet connection!
- Your course can be accessed any time. You can log in and log out as many times as you wish, pause, rewind and review, unlimited access for 4 months.
- Quizzes and Final exams help you retain the information.
- Once you feel prepared to write your CAIB exam, you must contact your Insurance Council, or in BC the Brokers Association to book your exam.
- Should you require any assistance at any time during your course work, we are here to support you! Email firstname.lastname@example.org
British Columbia Level 2 General Insurance Agent License
A level 2 general insurance agent is not restricted to where he or she can work and is not prohibited from signing contracts of insurance. Although insurance industry experience is not required, an applicant must be an authorized representative of a licensed general insurance agency and have met the educational requirements.
Saskatchewan Level 2 General Insurance Agent License
A Level 2 licensee shall not manage an agency.
Manitoba Level 2 General Insurance Agent License
A level 2 general insurance agent is authorized, to sell the insurance policies authorized under section 3, both inside and outside of the office of a general insurance agency, but is not authorized to manage the office of a general insurance agency
VICTORIA _ Insurance companies in British Columbia have agreed to end a pricing practice that has been identified as one of the key factors in skyrocketing property insurance premiums for condominiums.
Earlier this year, the B.C. Financial Services Authority said premiums have gone up by 40 per cent on average for a number of reasons.
Finance Minister Selina Robinson says an agreement to end so-called best terms pricing on Jan. 1 is a positive step.
Insuring multi-unit properties in B.C. often sees many insurers submit bids.
Under best terms pricing, the final premium paid by owners is usually based on the highest bid, even if most quotes were lower.
Blair Morrison, CEO of the financial services authority, says the change is an important step for long-term stability in the property insurance market.
Robinson was the housing minister in June when she introduced legislation to change the Strata Property Act and the Financial Institutions Act to bring more transparency to the insurance market.
The Insurance Council of B.C., the regulatory body for insurance agents in the province, says it will work with the industry to address the practice.
Council CEO Janet Sinclair says the change will mean less price volatility.
A financial authority report released in June says price pressures will continue on buildings considered to be higher risk and the insurance market for so-called strata properties was “unhealthy.”
It says insurers were accumulating losses mostly from minor claims, especially for water damage due to poor building maintenance and initial construction.
It says new building construction, building material changes and rising replacement costs have put added strain on the industry’s profitability.
Insurers are also reducing the amount of insurance they offer in B.C. because of excessive exposure to earthquake risk, it says.
By Shawn Jeffords
THE CANADIAN PRESS
TORONTO _ Under pressure to address rising commercial insurance rates blamed on the pandemic, Premier Doug Ford promised this week to take action to stop what he called “gouging” by some companies in the sector.
Ford twice this week has told insurance firms to rein in what he described as “astronomical” rate increases to businesses or outright denial of coverage.
His comments followed calls this week from various municipal and opposition politicians for the province to clamp down on the insurance industry with further regulations.
Ford expressed anger Thursday, using banquet halls as an example of an industry hard-hit by the pandemic that now also faces sky-rocketing insurance premiums.
“They’re absolutely just refusing to insure people, we don’t play that game,” Ford said. “You guys don’t get to get all the cream and gravy … and just slough off everything else and think we aren’t going to insure it.”
When pressed for details of his action plan, Ford said he was working with Finance Minister Rod Phillips, who is expected to deliver the provincial budget next month, to address the issue.
“I’m on to these guys,” Ford said. “The people are the priority, not the big insurance companies making gazillions of dollars. So I’m coming.”
Phillips’ office said this week that while the province regulates the auto insurance sector, it currently does not oversee commercial insurance.
A spokeswoman for the minister said the government was watching the insurance companies and their handling of the needs of the hospitality sector during the pandemic.
Emily Hogeveen said Phillips had also had discussions with the head of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario – the province’s fiscal regulator – on the issue.
“The minister’s message to insurance companies has been clear we expect you to treat your customers fairly. We will be closely monitoring the situation to ensure companies are adhering to a high standard of conduct,” she said in a statement. “All options are on the table.”
A spokesman for the Insurance Bureau of Canada said claims costs for commercial insurance were increasing across a number of sectors before COVID-19.
The pandemic has compounded “affordability and availability” of insurance, Steve Kee said in a statement.
“Insurance claims costs in general are on the rise, while Canada’s insurers have been working to keep rate increases to a minimum,” he said.
Kee said the commercial insurance market is competitive and it could be possible for businesses to find lower rates by shopping around.
“IBC continues to work with our members and other partners to find solutions to ensure that commercial insurance remains affordable,” he said.
Toronto Mayor John Tory has pressed the province to step in and protect restaurants and food delivery services, which are reporting dramatic insurance rate hikes.
“I fully support any action to be undertaken by the province to help address this, to support businesses who are simply trying to be good and continuing customers of these insurance companies,” he said.
Long-time Ontario legislator Jim Wilson, a former interim leader of the Progressive Conservative party who now sits as an independent, made a surprising call earlier this week for strict regulation of the insurance sector.
Wilson said he thought deeply before making the impassioned request during a session at Queen’s Park.
But after hearing from a number of condominium corporations in his riding north of Toronto about dramatic increases to their insurance rates he felt he had to act.
“What they’re hearing from brokers is that the industry blames that on COVID claims and severe weather claims,” he said. “That’s just bogus … I mean, they can’t be having COVID claims yet, it’s just too early. They need to justify the need for these exorbitant rates.”
Wilson, who has held a seat in the legislature since 1990, said governments of all political stripes have promised and failed to regulate insurance rates because the industry has a powerful lobby.
“I don’t know if we’ve ever truly had the Ministry of Finance or the regulator take an independent look at what their finances are and get to the bottom of why rates are doubling,” he said.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has been advocating for further regulation of the industry during the pandemic, pressing the government to protect businesses.
“The insurance industry has been running amok in this province for years now,” she said. “‘Mr. Phillips needs to step up to the plate and do something about it.”
Ford’s comments come after a group representing Ontario’s long-term care homes said the facilities are having trouble securing liability insurance for COVID-19, a situation which could force some of them to close.
The excerpted article was written By Laura Day, Kevin McGivney
In Sky Clean Energy Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2020 ONCA 558, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the Court) discussed the availability of insurance coverage to an additional insured. The appeal concerned the interpretation of a common insurance term that requires liability to “arise out of the operations” of a named insured. The Court considered the requisite connection between the contractor’s operations and the additional insured’s liability. The Court upheld the traditional limits to the term “arising out of the operations,” requiring more than a “but for” analysis in order to establish the connection between the liability of the additional insured and the operations of the named insured. In the context of this case, it was not enough that the contractor had installed the equipment at issue.
The project owner (the Owner) was a developer of solar energy projects and the contractor was an electrical contracting company. The Owner entered into contracts with the contractor to install a solar power system that the Owner designed, using equipment selected and sourced by the Owner. The Owner contracted with equipment suppliers to provide the main components of the system, including the inverter and transformer. It was the contractor’s responsibility to install the components.
Before beginning to install the first transformer, the contractor discovered that the transformer delivered by the Owner’s supplier did not conform to the Owner’s design specifications. Due to time restrictions, the Owner asked the contractor to help source new transformers. The contractor’s supplier located a transformer manufactured by a third party. It was the Owner’s decision to accept the third party transformer, and the contractor was not asked to provide an opinion on the suitability of the transformer. Upon completing the first project, representatives of both the Owner and contractor observed an anomaly in the power flow and recommended shutting down and investigating the system. The Owner’s representative decided to leave the system energized for “observation” and the Owner formally took control of the facility.
Three days later, the transformer overheated and caught fire.
After investigating the fire, the Owner determined that the third party transformer was suitable for the projects, as long as a technical adjustment was made to one of the connections. The Owner approved the change and authorized the contractor to proceed with the installation at the second site (and replace the transformer at the first site). Soon after, a fire broke out at the second project site and the transformer destroyed. As a result, both systems were shut down temporarily and replacement transformers installed. The Owner paid for the remediation and lost revenue of just under $600,000.
The Owner commenced various proceedings against the insurer (under which it was an additional insured), the contractor and the manufacturer of the transformer.
Under the contract between the Owner and the contractor, the contractor agreed to indemnify the Owner against the contractor’s failure to perform its contractual obligations and for its negligent acts. The contractor also agreed to name the Owner as an insured under its Commercial General Liability insurance policy with its insurer, but only with respect to liability arising out of its operations.
The interpretation of “arising out of”
In interpreting the policy language “arising out of,” the Court reiterated that courts consistently interpret language such as “arising out of” or “arising from” as requiring more than a “but for” connection between the liability of the additional insured and the operations of the named insured. There must be an “unbroken chain of causation” and a connection that is more than “merely incidental or fortuitous.”
The interpretation of “operations”
The Court also considered the meaning of “operations,” which was said to include “the creation of a situation, or circumstance, that is connected in some way to the alleged liability.” It does not necessarily imply an “active” role by the named insured in the creation of the liability.
Findings of the Court of Appeal
The Court agreed with the trial judge and found that the contractor’s connection with the failure of the transformer was “merely incidental.” The trial judge found that the failure of the transformer caused the fire. Though the fire would not have occurred “but for” the fact that the contractor ordered and installed the transformers in the course of its operations under the contracts, the contractor’s “operations” under the contract did not require it to select the transformers to be installed in the projects. That was up to the Owner.
Consideration as to the underlying obligations between the parties necessarily informed the Court’s decision in this case. While the Court rejected the argument that the language of the contract between the Owner and the contractor should affect the interpretation of policy of insurance (other than to explain the commercial context), central to the Court’s decision was that the contractor was not responsible to choose the transformer. The Court noted that the Additional Insured Endorsement provided insurance with respect to the liability arising out of the “operations” of the named insured. The contractual obligations, including the scope of work, therefore formed part of the inquiry.
The Court upheld the traditional limits to the term “arising out of the operations,” requiring more than a “but for” analysis in order to establish the connection between the liability of the additional insured and the operations of the named insured. Despite the finding that the failed transformer caused the fire, the transformer was chosen by the Owner and thus it was not enough that the contractor installed the equipment at issue.
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Van Huizen v. Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company, 2020 ONCA 222 underscores the distinction between an insurance policy and an insurance contract; particularly the importance this difference has in determining whether an insurer’s duty to defend is engaged for individuals participating in a group insurance program.
Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company (“Trisura”) issued a professional liability insurance policy (the “Master Policy”) to the Appraisal Institute of Canada (“AIC”). The Master Policy pertained to claims made against AIC members, their personal corporations, employers, and the AIC, for the negligent provision of professional appraisal services.
Coverage was extended to individual members of the AIC under the Master Policy by way of individual application. An individual certificate of insurance was issued to each member.
Mr. Van Huizen, a professional appraiser and member of the AIC, made a claim under the Master Policy and his individual certificate of insurance (the “Van Huizen Insurance Contract”) for coverage in respect of three proceedings (two actions and a third party claim), which were brought against Mr. Van Huizen and a business style, Hastings Appraisal Services (collectively referred to as “Van Huizen”).
These proceedings arose from an allegedly negligent property appraisal performed by another AIC member, Mr. Barkley. Mr. Barkley was also insured under the Master Policy and had his own individual certificate of insurance issued by Trisura (the “Barkley Insurance Contract”). Mr. Barkley passed away in October 2016.
Before Trisura could issue its coverage position in respect of the Van Huizen claim, Van Huizen commenced an action against Trisura seeking a declaration that Trisura had a duty to defend and indemnify them under the Van Huizen insurance contract for the three proceedings.
The Summary Judgment Motion
Trisura brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the action on the basis that it owed no duty to defend. In particular, Trisura took the position that, among other things, no coverage was available under the Van Huizen Insurance Contract because it did not provide coverage for Mr. Barkley’s alleged professional negligence.
The motion judge dismissed Trisura’s motion and granted judgment in favour of Van Huizen. In reaching this conclusion, the motion judge adopted a broad interpretation of the Master Policy and concluded that “Mr. Van Huzien has coverage for a legal claim arising from his own actions and also when it flows from his legal status as an employer of the alleged wrongdoer [Mr. Barkley].” The motion judge also found that Trisura had a duty to defend Van Huizen on the basis that such an interpretation was necessary for the vicarious liability provision to have any practical effect.
Trisura appealed the motion judge’s decision.
The primary issue on appeal was whether the motion judge erred in finding that Trisura’s duty to defend Van Huizen was engaged under the Van Huizen Insurance Contract.
While the motion judge correctly identified the relevant interpretative principles in determining whether there was a duty to defend, the Court found the motion judge erred by treating the Master Policy as the entire insurance contract for all AIC members.
The Court’s decision turned on the differences that separate insurance policies from insurance contracts as recognized by the statutory definitions of “contract” and “policy” in the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c. I.8.1 The Court noted insurance policies are instruments that do not create legal obligations simply through their existence. Without an added contractual relationship, a policy is merely a recitation of terms and conditions that does not attach to a particular person or item.
In contrast, an insurance contract creates contractual obligations between parties. Like any contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and agreement on all material terms. Premiums, the nature and duration of risks, and the extent of liability, are all material terms in an insurance contract.
The motion judged interpreted the Master Policy as if it constituted a binding agreement between Trisura and all members who had been issued certificates. Since both Mr. Van Huizen and Mr. Barkley each held certificates under the Master Policy, the motion judge incorrectly concluded they were both “Insureds” and entitled to coverage.
The Court explained that the Master Policy did not constitute a binding agreement on its own and merely set out the terms of the professional liability insurance being offered to the AIC members. Each AIC member who desired coverage must apply and, provided the member and the insurer come to an agreement on the remaining essential terms (e.g. premium to be paid and the term of insurance), a certificate of insurance must be issued to the member to confirm the existence of the insurance contract. Thus, the certificates issued to Mr. Van Huizen and Mr. Barkley were evidence of separate insurance contracts.
In light of this, the individual certificate issued to Mr. Van Huizen should have been used to determine whether Trisura had a duty to defend. Since the motion judge erred by finding a duty to defend based solely on the Master Policy, the Court reconsidered the issue based on an interpretation of the true contractual relationship between the parties.
As Mr. Barkley’s certificate did not form part of the Van Huizen Insurance Contract, only Van Huizen would be captured under the definitions of “Member”, “Insured” and “Wrongful Act”. In other words, coverage was only available for claims against Van Huizen respecting Mr. Van Huizen‘s provision of professional services. Consequently, there was no coverage under the Van Huizen Insurance Contract for Mr. Barkley‘s alleged professional negligence.
Ultimately, the Court found Trisura’s duty to defend was not engaged and the motion judge’s order was set aside.
The appeal decision in Van Huizen v. Trisura serves as a useful reminder of the important distinction between an insurance contract and an insurance policy, particularly where coverage is offered under a group insurance program. It is the insurance contract, not the insurance policy, which must be considered when determining an insurer’s liability.
1 Section 1 of the Insurance Act defines “contract” to mean “a contract of insurance, and includes a policy, certificate, … evidencing the contract …” and “policy” to mean “the instrument evidencing a contract”.
Originally published by Clyde & Co, August 2020
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Read more at Mondaq
By Michael Liedtke
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Restaurants, bars and other merchants struggling to stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic are desperately reaching out for a lifeline from insurers that in turn contend they are being miscast as potential saviours.
Shutdowns and crowd restrictions imposed by state and local governments to limit the spread of the virus have resulted in more than $1 trillion in estimated losses so far for thousands of rapidly sinking small businesses.
That has prompted a flood of claims under business interruption insurance policies that have been almost universally rejected for a variety of reasons, including boilerplate provisions inserted by insurers after the SARS outbreak in 2003 to exclude disruptions caused by virus and bacteria.
“This is an existential threat,” said John Houghtaling, a New Orleans attorney who is representing restaurants and other businesses seeking about $8 billion in losses that he estimates they will suffer during the pandemic. “A lot of people who did the right thing and bought this coverage thinking they would be thrown a lifeboat if disaster struck are now being told, `Sorry, let the Coast Guard come and get you instead.”’
So many lawsuits have been filed against insurers in the U.S. that a Thursday hearing has been scheduled before a federal judicial panel in Washington to decide how to manage them all in the months and possibly years ahead. The panel’s review involves more than 200 federal complaints in addition the other lawsuits filed in state courts by the owners of meat-and-potato cafes as well as some of the nation’s best-known and most exclusive restaurants, such as the French Laundry in Napa Valley’s wine country and California cuisine pioneer Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California, which sued its insurer, AMCO, for breach of contract earlier this month.
“The servers, cooks, farmers, ranchers and other hard-working people in the Chez Panisse family are seeing their livelihoods in jeopardy because AMCO has declined to live up to its responsibilities,” said Alice Waters, Chez Panisse’s owner.
President Donald Trump weighed in on the thorny issue in April when he told reporters that he suspected many insurers were dodging their obligations. “You have people that have never asked for business interruption insurance (payments) and they’ve been paying a lot of money for a lot of years for the privilege of having it,” Trump said. “And then when they finally need it, the insurance company says, `We’re not going to give it.’ We can’t let that happen.”
Although sympathetic to their policyholders’ plights, insurers say most business interruption policies were designed to cover shutdowns caused by catastrophes such as hurricanes and terrorist attacks while excluding pandemics that cause widespread losses too staggering to cover, even for an industry sitting on $850 billion in reserves. Only a small number of businesses sought additional coverage that specifically includes losses caused by pandemics, said David Sampson, CEO of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, an industry trade group.
Even so, Lloyd’s of London has estimated the insurance industry still will pay out $107 billion in pandemic-related claims, more than the combined amounts doled out after the terrorist attacks in September 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Besides businesses that bought special coverage, the claims include payouts to major sporting and entertainment events that bought cancellation policies coverage, such as the Wimbledon tennis tournament that is collecting about $140 million under its pandemic policy. Insurers also are paying workers’ compensation claims for employees who get sick on the job.
“This popular meme out there that the insurance industry isn’t paying for losses is just not true,” Sampson said.
But the claims insurers are paying only a small fraction of the $231 billion to $431 billion in monthly losses piling up at U.S. businesses with fewer than 100 employees, according to the industry’s estimates.
At that rate, insurers would have no money left to cover non-pandemic claims for auto accidents, home fires and even damages to businesses during the protests across the country since George Floyd died at the hands of Minneapolis police in May, according to industry consultant Robert Hartwig of the University of South Carolina’s risk and management centre.
The denial of business interruption coverage is also hurting bars across the country, many of which haven’t been able to offer pick-up or outside dining like restaurants have. The Ivy Club, which also offers live music during normal times its Albany, California, venue, has had to lay off most of its 20-employee staff since March and is now raising money from community donations while it fights its insurer over its business interruption claim.
“Everything is so uncertain that we really don’t know what we are going to do,” said Summer Gerbing, one of the Ivy Room’s co-owners.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in California and several other states have drawn up legislation that would force insurers to cover the business interruption losses that have piled up since March a requirement that, if imposed, the industry is already vowing to fight as unconstitutional.
The dispute boils down to whether business interruption policies can be applied to instances when there is no physical damage or destruction to a restaurant or store that is being prevented from conducting business as usual.
In one of the first decisions issued on that question earlier this month, a Michigan state judge sided with an insurer’s rejection of a claim for $650,000 for two months of losses that Nick Gavrilides said he suffered at two restaurants, the Soup Spoon Cafe in Lansing, Michigan, and the Bistro in nearby Williamston, Michigan.
Gavrilides’ lawyer, Matthew Heos, contended business interruption coverage should apply because authorities prohibited customers from physically entering the property, an assertion derided as “nonsense” by Judge Joyce Draganchuk during a July 1 hearing posted online.
“There has to be something that physically alters the integrity of the property,” Draganchuk concluded in her dismissal of Gavrilides’ case.
Gavrilides is now serving customers inside both restaurants but only at half capacity, a restriction that is making it difficult to stay open even though they are operating with skeletal staffs. The Soup Spoon Cafe now has 12 to 15 employees, down from 40 just before the pandemic.
“It’s literally day to day for us now,” Gavrilides said. “I feel let down for everybody. I thought by paying my premiums for the past 14 years and it my service was ever interrupted, I would be rescued. But I guess that isn’t going to happen now.”