AIC-M common mistakes
AIC-M · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Selects a coverage answer after matching one keyword (for example, 'business,' 'vehicle,' or 'water') to an exclusion, without first establishing the insuring agreement and the full loss facts.
Exam items often separate the policy definition, exclusion, and exception across several sentences, and keyword matching feels faster under time pressure.
What to do instead
Use a four-column scratch outline-insured, date, location, loss-then quote the insuring agreement, list each exclusion element, and test any exception before choosing an answer.
Treats 'occurrence' as meaning any event that causes harm and never tests whether the damage was expected or intended from the insured's standpoint.
Everyday usage of 'occurrence' is broader than the policy definition, and intentional-act exclusions are easy to overlook when the facts sound accidental.
What to do instead
Write out the policy definition, apply each element, distinguish an intended act from an intended result, and flag ambiguity for review rather than assuming coverage or denial.
Finds a breach of duty and immediately concludes that the insurer owes the claim, skipping causation, damages, and coverage conditions.
Negligence is learned as a sequence, but exam facts sometimes isolate duty or breach, tempting candidates to stop at the first element.
What to do instead
List duty, breach, cause, and damages, assign a specific fact to each, and then analyze defenses, damages, and coverage separately before selecting.
Applies one comparative-negligence rule to every jurisdiction or ignores joint-and-several liability limits when calculating recovery.
Most candidates learn a single tort regime, while exam stems mention venue or jurisdiction only briefly.
What to do instead
Identify the jurisdiction's rule from the facts, compute plaintiff and defendant percentages, state whether recovery is barred or reduced, and address joint-and-several liability and statutory caps.
Accepts or denies a claim without analyzing whether a policy condition such as notice, proof of loss, cooperation, or suit limitation was satisfied and whether the insurer suffered prejudice.
Conditions are buried in policy forms, and prejudice, waiver, and estoppel require a second analytical step that candidates often skip.
What to do instead
List each condition, mark it satisfied or breached, then analyze prejudice, waiver, and estoppel, and document the reasoning for each condition.
Defends an insured under a reservation of rights while telling the insured that coverage is accepted, or fails to recognize a conflict that requires independent counsel.
Settlement pressure and the desire to avoid conflict make it easy to blur defense obligations with coverage positions.
What to do instead
Separate defense from coverage, identify the conflict, recommend independent counsel when required, and document the reservation of rights and non-waiver position.
Assumes settlement authority from a job title instead of confirming the written authority matrix, then approves a payment above the adjuster's limit.
Titles vary across organizations, and exam items test escalation rules rather than real-world assumptions.
What to do instead
Confirm the authority grid, and when uncertain treat the matter as requiring approval; document the referral, approver, and limits before committing to a settlement.
Uses one operational metric such as average cycle time to diagnose performance while ignoring claim mix, severity, allocated loss adjustment expense, and quality results.
Single metrics are easy to recall and look decisive, but they can improve while overall claim handling deteriorates.
What to do instead
Define each metric's numerator and denominator, compare across comparable cohorts, and pair efficiency measures with severity, expense, and quality audits to detect tradeoffs.
Chooses the insurer-favorable answer when the facts show a good-faith coverage dispute, or conceals adverse facts to support a denial.
Financial pressure and role confusion make close ethical calls feel like loyalty tests rather than good-faith analysis.
What to do instead
Apply a good-faith standard, articulate both sides of the dispute, disclose adverse facts, escalate genuine conflicts, and document the factual and legal basis for the decision.
Addresses a performance problem only in the annual review or jumps straight to discipline without measurable standards and timely coaching.
Leaders often avoid confrontation, and exam items test progressive performance management rather than annual-review habits.
What to do instead
Set observable standards, give timely and specific feedback, document the discussion, use coaching before progressive discipline, and measure whether the behavior changed.