Free Indiana Life practice questions

Answer: B. Support is at least $2,000 past due, or at least three months past due

The definitions section of the producer licensing chapter treats a person as delinquent when court-ordered child support is past due by at least $2,000 or by at least three months. Either threshold is enough by itself, so the version requiring both the dollar amount and the time period is wrong. The $1,000 or 30-day figures and the $5,000 or six-month figures do not appear in the definition.

Answer: A. Only to the start of the third policy year

Ind. Code Sec. 27-4-1-4(a)(8)(C) excludes from discrimination and rebating a readjustment of a group policy's premium rate based on its loss or expense experience, made at the end of the first or any later year, and allows the readjustment to be retroactive only for that policy year. A readjustment made at the end of the third year may therefore reach back only to that third year. Reaching back to the issue date or to a year the insurer picks goes beyond the limit. The statute does allow retroactive effect for the year itself, so barring all retroactive effect is stricter than the rule.

Answer: A. Refusal, suspension, or revocation of the license

The resident application section has the applicant make the declaration under penalty of refusal, suspension, or revocation of the license, so an untrue or incomplete application puts the license itself at risk. The section sets no fixed waiting period before a new application, shifts no liability to an insurer, and says nothing about retaking the examination.

Answer: B. A designated home state license, if she meets Indiana's resident education rules

Indiana issues a designated home state license to a nonresident who asks for Indiana licensure in a line of authority that her home state does not license, provided she also meets the prelicensing and continuing education rules that apply to an Indiana resident seeking that line. A nonresident producer license rests on current resident licensure in good standing in the home state, which Dana cannot hold for a line her state does not license. Indiana's temporary producer license serves other purposes, such as keeping a business serviced after a producer's death or disability, and a limited lines producer license authorizes limited lines insurance rather than a major line such as life.

Answer: D. Yes, because Maple provides her with health and retirement benefits as her employer

Indiana gives an employer an insurable interest in the life of an employee to whom it provides life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement benefits, or similar benefits. Any one of those benefits is enough, so Maple's health coverage and retirement plan qualify even though it provides no life coverage. The statute's definition of employee expressly includes nonmanagement employees, so the interest is not limited to directors, officers, and managers. This section ties the interest to providing benefits and states no separate requirement to prove a specific financial loss.

Answer: B. She must pass a written examination to qualify for the license

Indiana requires a written examination of every resident individual who applies for a producer, consultant's, or surplus lines producer license, unless section 9 of the chapter exempts the individual. Priya is a resident consultant applicant with no prior license, designation, or degree of the kind section 9 deals with, so she must pass the exam. Consultant applicants are named in the requirement alongside producer applicants, the examination section offers no course that replaces the exam, and the requirement applies whatever kinds of insurance she plans to consult on.

Answer: D. No, because a loan by the insurer under the policy's terms is excluded from the definition

A viatical settlement contract is generally an agreement transferring part of a policy's death benefit or ownership for less than the expected death benefit. Indiana expressly excludes from that definition a loan made by the insurer under the terms of the policy, including a loan secured by the policy's cash value. Receiving less than the death benefit does not change the result, because the exclusion applies to the policy loan as such. The five-year language in the definition concerns a person who purchases no more than one policy in five years, not a policy loan.

Answer: B. At least one employee, and legally doing business in Indiana

For this statute, an employer may be an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a limited liability company, or another legal entity, provided it has at least one employee and is legally doing business in Indiana. The definition sets no requirement of Indiana incorporation, no minimum of two or fifty employees, and no required time in business. Whether the employer provides benefits matters to whether it has an insurable interest in a given employee, but it is not part of the definition of employer.

Answer: B. An unfair practice, because willfully omitting a true entry to deceive is covered

IC 27-4-1-4(a)(5) covers making a false entry in an insurer's book, report, or statement with intent to deceive an examiner lawfully appointed to examine its condition, and, with the same intent, willfully omitting to make a true entry of a material fact about the insurer's business. Leaving the loss out to mislead the department's examiners is that omission, even though no false figure was written. The subdivision reaches the books themselves, not only statements filed with an official, and it sets no requirement that policyholders be harmed.

Answer: A. An unfair practice, because false claims about the insurer's finances were meant to injure it

IC 27-4-1-4(a)(3) makes it an unfair practice to make or circulate, orally or in writing, a statement that is false or maliciously derogatory about an insurer's financial condition and is calculated to injure a person in the insurance business. A knowingly false insolvency claim aimed at drawing away a rival's clients fits both elements. The subdivision covers spoken statements as well as written ones, and it turns on whether the statement was calculated to injure, not on proof that the rival lost business. It contains no exception for a producer who has no relationship with the insurer described.