1) ruth purchased a property insurance policy from abc insurance (abc). this policy
covered ruths airplane and the policy limits were $300,000. a fire broke out on january
1, 2006, when the airplane was stored in its hangar, completely destroying the airplane.
there was suspicious evidence that the fire had been deliberately set, and abc honestly
believed that ruth had set the fire. abc refused to pay on this policy. however, ruth was
completely innocent, and she sued to enforce the policy. the lawsuit, which ended on
january 1, 2007, determined that ruth had nothing to do with the fire. because ruth
needed to use a private airplane to visit clients in remote areas, she rented an airplane
during the calendar year 2006. this cost her $50,000. abc was aware that ruth needed an
airplane to reach her clients when it issued the policy. ruth would have used the policy
limits of $300,000 to purchase another airplane in 2006, but for abcs refusal to pay on
its policy. under these circumstances, ruth is entitled to a judgment in the amount of:
a.$300,000 (the policy limits).
b.$300,000 (the policy limits) and also $50,000 consequential damages.
c.$300,000 (the policy limits), $50,000 consequential damages and also punitive
damages.
d.$300,000 (the policy limits), $50,000 consequential damages, statutory damages and
also punitive damages.
2) market shares in excess of _____ have historically justified an inference of monopoly
power.
a.70 percent
b.60 percent
c.90 percent
d.80 percent