KP Pacific v Guardian - off.topic
What is the purpose of including this case? the BC government removed section V in 2009. They also changed the limitation periods.
It seems strange to have such outdated materials in an exam.
Furthermore, F2015 Q14c could be answered differently if you considered current legislation vs. historical legislation. Which is a weird place to put students.
Comments
Interesting. I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me. Once you dig down, there are a lot of issues with exam 6, but it would take an enormous effort to resolve them, and there is ultimately no real incentive for someone to assume that task. I suppose we are all enablers by continuing to spend hundreds of hours studying! A company in the U.S. where I worked a while back (now called National General) fired all but one of the FCAS's because upper management finally decided they weren't worth the high salary they were being paid. When I left that company, the actuarial department consisted of one ACAS, a few PhDs in math/stats/computer science, and a big stable of analysts, most of whom didn't take exams at all. Maybe the incentive to hone the exams will only come when people stop hiring actuaries or when exam registrations drop off. It could be a good system, but I think there's too much material and it takes too many hours/years to get through it all. I've always enjoyed studying but even I find it a bit much! Just my 2 cents...
I also have an off-topic question:
Why would anyone file a proof of loss before they file a claim? Wouldn't filing a claim lead to filing a proof of loss? Why would KP wait over a year to file a claim?
I'd understand if it was bodily injury, where the health issues don't immediately arise. But this is property damage