Under a policy with the Boiler and Machinery form, with no endorsements, state "covered" or "not covered" for the following incidents, and explain. If not covered, state how (if at all) it could have been covered under Boiler and Machinery insurance: "The insured suffered windstorm damage water the air conditioning unit, a covered object"?

Choose one answer.

	A. Not covered - exclusions delete coverage.
	B. Covered (subject to a limit of $50,000) - covered property.
	C. Covered (subject to a limit of $25,000) - covered property.
	D. Not covered - windstorm is an optional coverage, which must be added by endorsement, if desired.

Correct

I feel compelled to put this out for all due to the fact that this is not the only proofreading error in this course.  Just one of MANY.

How does a professional company let these kind of mistakes out the door?  I'm no english scholar and my spelling is suspect at times but the qoute statement in this question makes no sense at all.   Why does a serious learning institution perpetuate such lax standards by offering/selling such flawed material.

I guess I'm just put out that I paid quite a bit for this "mandated" course and am investing a lot of time in something that is so poorly done.