NH Property & Casualty common mistakes
NH Property & Casualty · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a question hinges on a New Hampshire-specific rule (producer licensing, appointment, continuing education, reporting of administrative actions, or state claim-handling expectations), the candidate answers from generic national insurance knowledge instead of the state rule, and picks the choice that sounds like standard practice.
Most study hours go to the national concepts that make up the bulk of the question pool; the state chapter gets read once at the end and never rehearsed, so the only mental model available on exam day is the generic one.
What to do instead
Build a separate one-page 'NH-only' sheet (licensing, appointments, CE, reporting, prohibited practices, claim handling) and drill it in short daily cycles until each line can be recalled without the page. Keep it physically separate from the national notes so the two never blur.
On questions about producer and insurer conduct, the candidate cannot separate closely related unfair trade practices and picks the broadest-sounding label, for example calling premium commingling 'misrepresentation' or treating a rebate as an acceptable marketing discount.
The prohibited-practice list is memorized as a jumble of similar-sounding words rather than as distinct definitions with distinct examples, so recognition fails under time pressure.
What to do instead
Make a two-column table of each practice paired with one concrete example (who does what, to whom, with what money or statement). Test yourself by reading only the example and naming the practice, and only the practice name and writing the example.
The candidate mixes up pairs of general concepts that share vocabulary: coinsurance with reinsurance, warranty with representation, waiver with estoppel, subrogation with contribution, and condition with exclusion.
These terms are learned in the same study session and are stored as one fuzzy cluster; the exam deliberately plants the sibling term as a distractor, which feels familiar and gets selected.
What to do instead
For each pair, write a one-sentence distinction in your own words plus a trigger question ('does this involve another insurer sharing the same loss?' means contribution, not subrogation). Review the pair list before every practice set, not after.
On loss-settlement questions the candidate applies the wrong valuation method or forgets to net depreciation: they use replacement cost when the policy settles at actual cash value, or they subtract depreciation and then also subtract the deductible in the wrong order, producing a number that appears as a distractor.
Valuation is read as a definition to recognize rather than a formula to execute, so under time pressure the candidate grabs whichever method was mentioned most recently in the policy stem.
What to do instead
Drill ten numeric items end to end with the arithmetic written out: replacement cost, then subtract depreciation to reach ACV, then apply any limit or coinsurance, then subtract the deductible. Say the order out loud until it is automatic.
The candidate treats 'open peril' or 'special form' as 'covers everything' and answers that a loss is covered unless it is illegal or obviously excluded, instead of working through the coverage grant, then the exclusions, then the exceptions to the exclusions.
The phrase 'all risk' sticks in memory from introductory material, and the exclusion list is long and feels like detail rather than the actual decision framework.
What to do instead
Practice a fixed three-step routine on every coverage question: is the cause of loss within the grant, is it excluded, does an exception or ensuing-loss provision restore it? Apply it to the same five causes (water, earth movement, neglect, faulty work, backup of sewers) until the routine runs without prompting.
On homeowners questions the candidate assumes the policy is a single coverage limit and ignores the coverage extensions and sublimits, so they answer that trees, debris removal, reasonable repairs to protect property, or sewer backup are paid in full or paid not at all.
Coverage extensions are printed in the same small type as definitions, and candidates study the declarations page and perils list instead of the limits-of-liability section where the sublimits live.
What to do instead
Draw a one-page map of the homeowners form: each coverage part, its base limit, and every named sublimit or extension with its cap (percentage or dollar figure as stated in the form you are studying). Rebuild the map from memory weekly.
On commercial property items the candidate skips the coinsurance calculation, or treats blanket and specific insurance as interchangeable, and accepts a payout figure that ignores the coinsurance penalty entirely.
Coinsurance is the most intimidating arithmetic on the exam, so it gets avoided in practice and then guessed at on test day; the answer choices are built around the forgetting-to-apply-it result.
What to do instead
Use one fixed worksheet for every coinsurance item: required insurance equals coinsurance percentage times value, then divide insurance carried by insurance required, cap at one, multiply by the loss, then subtract the deductible. Do it on paper for a dozen items until the sequence is reflexive.
In liability items the candidate applies occurrence-trigger logic to a claims-made policy, or vice versa, and ignores the retroactive date and extended reporting period entirely when deciding whether a claim is covered.
The two trigger types are taught back to back and the candidate remembers only the words, not the timeline; the retroactive date and reporting period look like fine print next to the headline limit.
What to do instead
For each liability policy type, sketch a timeline and place the injury date, the retroactive date, the policy period, the claim date, and the extended reporting period on it. Answer every trigger question by locating those five points before reading the choices.
On personal auto questions the candidate misclassifies the vehicle: calling a borrowed car an owned auto, treating a temporary substitute as a non-owned auto, or assuming a newly acquired vehicle has no coverage until the insurer is notified, and then answers coverage questions from that wrong classification.
The definitions of 'your covered auto' and 'non-owned auto' are learned as lists, not as tests to apply, and the exam frames scenarios that deliberately sit on the boundary between categories.
What to do instead
Write the classification tests as questions ('is it on the declarations? is it a replacement or an addition? is it a temporary substitute for a covered auto?') and run every scenario through them in order before touching the answer choices. Include the notification and automatic-coverage time windows stated in the form you study.
The candidate answers liability-coverage questions in isolation, without checking the exclusion that interacts with the other line: for example, expecting a commercial general liability policy to respond to an employee's work injury, or expecting it to pay for damage to the insured's own completed work.
Each policy is studied in its own chapter, so the crossover exclusions (employer's liability, damage to your work, damage to your product) are never seen as the boundary lines between workers compensation, auto, and general liability.
What to do instead
Build a single grid with the major casualty policies down one side and common loss scenarios across the top, and mark which policy responds and which exclusion pushes the loss away. Review the grid whenever a scenario names more than one person or more than one policy.