USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
AssignmentTemplates/Assignment 2.html
INSR-6007 Discussion #1
Instructions
Read the article found at
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ontario-court-of-appeal-clarifies-a-retail-store-employee-s-standard-of-care-in-product-liability-ca-1000070728/
Explain how the “Standard of Care” differs from the “Duty of Care”
How to Submit your Assignment
Post your answers to
Online Discussion # 1 by 11.59 pm on Sunday
Grading Criteria
Access the
Rubric for Online Discussions x
Assignment Resources and Links
Direct link to article mentioned above
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ontario-court-of-appeal-clarifies-a-retail-store-employee-s-standard-of-care-in-product-liability-ca-1000070728/
Documents/Rubric for Online Discussions x
Rubric for Online Discussions / Assignments # ___ Name ___________________________________________ Score: _____________
Outstanding
Good
Fair
Acceptable
Not Completed
Thinking / Reflection
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are logical and supported with evidence. Highly informative and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported. Arguments are informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical or supported. Somewhat informative and understandable.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at all, logical and supported. Not very informative and understandable.
No evidence.
Structure
There is a logical flow to the topics / arguments. Conclusion flows clearly from the arguments presented.
Discussion is fairly well organized. Conclusion flows from the rest of the discussion.
Discussion weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Discussion is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t flow from the rest of the discussion.
No evidence.
Interest Factor
Language and style are appropriate for intended audience. Main points are memorable. Reader is very engaged. Discussion presents well developed analysis and synthesis. Clearly demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style of discussion appropriate. Reader is engaged. Discussion presents reasonable analysis and synthesis. Demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style only fair. Reader is only somewhat engaged. Less-developed analysis and synthesis. Critical thinking is abstract and hard to follow.
Language and style are poor. Reader finds it hard to follow. Analysis and synthesis lacking. There is little evidence of critical thinking.
No evidence.
Conclusion
The conclusion is engaging and reflects personal learning.
The conclusion restates the learning.
The conclusion does not adequately restate the learning.
Incomplete and/or unfocused.
Not applicable.
Mechanics
No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Almost no errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Many errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Many errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Numerous and distracting errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Not applicable.
Assignment HTML Files/Discussion Assignment 2.html
INSR-6008 Discussion #1
Instructions
Read the article “
Shouldering the risk…” and complete the following assignment;
Using this article as a case, complete a Fishbone Analysis diagram to represent this situation.
Your answers should be submitted to the drop box for this week by 11:59 pm on Sunday. You will be marked based on the discussion rubric.
How to Submit your Assignment
Post your summary to
Discussion #1 – Shouldering The Risk by Sunday at 11:59 pm
Grading Criteria
Access the
Rubric for Online Discussions
Assignment Resources and Links
Direct link to article listed above
Shouldering the risk …
http://www.citopbroker.com/magazine-archives/shouldering-the-risk-of-thousands-of-college-kids-8876
Documents/Rubric for Online Discussions x
Rubric for Online Discussions / Assignments # ___ Name ___________________________________________ Score: _____________
Outstanding
Good
Fair
Acceptable
Not Completed
Thinking / Reflection
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are logical and supported with evidence. Highly informative and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported. Arguments are informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical or supported. Somewhat informative and understandable.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at all, logical and supported. Not very informative and understandable.
No evidence.
Structure
There is a logical flow to the topics / arguments. Conclusion flows clearly from the arguments presented.
Discussion is fairly well organized. Conclusion flows from the rest of the discussion.
Discussion weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Discussion is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t flow from the rest of the discussion.
No evidence.
Interest Factor
Language and style are appropriate for intended audience. Main points are memorable. Reader is very engaged. Discussion presents well developed analysis and synthesis. Clearly demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style of discussion appropriate. Reader is engaged. Discussion presents reasonable analysis and synthesis. Demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style only fair. Reader is only somewhat engaged. Less-developed analysis and synthesis. Critical thinking is abstract and hard to follow.
Language and style are poor. Reader finds it hard to follow. Analysis and synthesis lacking. There is little evidence of critical thinking.
No evidence.
Conclusion
The conclusion is engaging and reflects personal learning.
The conclusion restates the learning.
The conclusion does not adequately restate the learning.
Incomplete and/or unfocused.
Not applicable.
Mechanics
No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Almost no errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Many errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Many errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Numerous and distracting errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Not applicable.
AssignmentTemplates/Assignment 2.html
INSR-6010 Discussion / Assignment 2
Instructions
Read the article “
Customers First” and answer the following questions in the discussion board forum for this week.
What skills or attributes do you have that you feel will make you a good loss adjuster. List at least five (5).
After reading this article, what processes do you feel a client would find most valuable from their service providers following a claim?
This will be marked using the “Discussion Rubric”.
How to Submit your Assignment
Post your response to
Discussion / Assignment 2 by 11:59 pm on Sunday of this week.
Grading Criteria
Access the
Rubric for Online Discussions x
Assignment Resources and Links
Direct link to article above
http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/features/customers-first/
Documents/Rubric for Online Discussions x
Rubric for Online Discussions / Assignments # ___ Name ___________________________________________ Score: _____________
Outstanding
Good
Fair
Acceptable
Not Completed
Thinking / Reflection
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are logical and supported with evidence. Highly informative and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported. Arguments are informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical or supported. Somewhat informative and understandable.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at all, logical and supported. Not very informative and understandable.
No evidence.
Structure
There is a logical flow to the topics / arguments. Conclusion flows clearly from the arguments presented.
Discussion is fairly well organized. Conclusion flows from the rest of the discussion.
Discussion weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Discussion is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t flow from the rest of the discussion.
No evidence.
Interest Factor
Language and style are appropriate for intended audience. Main points are memorable. Reader is very engaged. Discussion presents well developed analysis and synthesis. Clearly demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style of discussion appropriate. Reader is engaged. Discussion presents reasonable analysis and synthesis. Demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style only fair. Reader is only somewhat engaged. Less-developed analysis and synthesis. Critical thinking is abstract and hard to follow.
Language and style are poor. Reader finds it hard to follow. Analysis and synthesis lacking. There is little evidence of critical thinking.
No evidence.
Conclusion
The conclusion is engaging and reflects personal learning.
The conclusion restates the learning.
The conclusion does not adequately restate the learning.
Incomplete and/or unfocused.
Not applicable.
Mechanics
No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Almost no errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Many errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Many errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Numerous and distracting errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Not applicable.
Assignment HTML Files/Discussion Assignment 2.html
INSR-6006 Discussion #1
An Underwriter and Sales
Instructions
More and more we find that our underwriters are required to “sell” their products and services as much as brokers / agents do. As a result this type of training has become an essential skill for all underwriters.
Read only the first six (6) pages of the online article “
How Sales Techniques Work”
How do you feel these techniques and skills will benefit an underwriter and why?
Who are the underwriter’s customers? Who are we selling to?
The article talks about relationship building as a sales technique. In your own opinion, why do you feel this is more important in the insurance industry, and specifically to an underwriter, than in any other industry that sells their products and services?
How to Submit your Assignment
Post your answer to
Discussion #1 by Sunday at 11:59 pm
Grading Criteria
Access the
Rubric for Online Discussions
Assignment Resources and Links
Direct link to the article listed above
http://money.howstuffworks.com/business-communications/sales-technique.htm
Documents/Rubric for Online Discussions x
Rubric for Online Discussions / Assignments # ___ Name ___________________________________________ Score: _____________
Outstanding
Good
Fair
Acceptable
Not Completed
Thinking / Reflection
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are logical and supported with evidence. Highly informative and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported. Arguments are informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical or supported. Somewhat informative and understandable.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at all, logical and supported. Not very informative and understandable.
No evidence.
Structure
There is a logical flow to the topics / arguments. Conclusion flows clearly from the arguments presented.
Discussion is fairly well organized. Conclusion flows from the rest of the discussion.
Discussion weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Discussion is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t flow from the rest of the discussion.
No evidence.
Interest Factor
Language and style are appropriate for intended audience. Main points are memorable. Reader is very engaged. Discussion presents well developed analysis and synthesis. Clearly demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style of discussion appropriate. Reader is engaged. Discussion presents reasonable analysis and synthesis. Demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style only fair. Reader is only somewhat engaged. Less-developed analysis and synthesis. Critical thinking is abstract and hard to follow.
Language and style are poor. Reader finds it hard to follow. Analysis and synthesis lacking. There is little evidence of critical thinking.
No evidence.
Conclusion
The conclusion is engaging and reflects personal learning.
The conclusion restates the learning.
The conclusion does not adequately restate the learning.
Incomplete and/or unfocused.
Not applicable.
Mechanics
No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Almost no errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Many errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Many errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Numerous and distracting errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Not applicable.
