100+ Free C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 Practice Questions

Pass your Insurance Institute of Canada - C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 exam on the first try — instant access, no signup required.

✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately

100+ Questions

100% Free

Loading practice questions...

Same family resources

Explore More Insurance Institute of Canada CIP Courses

Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.

CIP C11 Principles and Practice of Insurance Exam (Insurance Institute of Canada)

Practice Questions100 questions

CIP C12: Insurance on Property

Practice Questions100 questions

CIP C14: Automobile Insurance Part 1

Practice Questions100 questions

2026 Statistics

Key Facts: C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 Exam

100

Total Questions

IIC Blueprint

60%

Exam Pass Mark

IIC Guidelines

2.0h

Exam Duration

IIC Blueprint

CAD $383

Exam/Rewrite Fee (Aug 2025)

IIC CIP Fees

This practice exam tests your knowledge of Canadian legal liability, negligence, Quebec Civil Code rules, the CGL policy, and liability underwriting.

Sample C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 Practice Questions

Try these sample questions to test your C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.

1Under Canadian law, what is the primary distinction between the objective of civil law (torts) and the objective of criminal law?

A.Civil law aims to punish the wrongdoer and deter others, while criminal law aims to resolve disputes between private parties.

B.Civil law seeks to compensate the victim for a civil wrong, whereas criminal law focuses on punishing the offender to protect society.

C.Civil law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas criminal law requires proof on a balance of probabilities.

D.Civil law handles disputes exclusively involving contract breaches, while criminal law handles all other societal wrongs.

Explanation: The primary objective of civil law (including tort law) is to compensate the injured party and restore them, as near as possible, to their pre-loss position. In contrast, criminal law addresses public wrongs against society, aiming to punish offenders and deter future crime. Furthermore, the standard of proof in civil law is the balance of probabilities, whereas criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2Which of the following best defines the legal concept of a 'tort' under Canadian common law?

A.A breach of a written contract that results in financial loss to one of the signing parties.

B.A civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of action for damages.

C.Any violation of a provincial statute or municipal bylaw that results in a police citation.

D.An agreement between two parties that creates mutual obligations enforceable by law.

Explanation: A tort is a civil wrong (other than a breach of contract) committed by one person against another, which results in injury or damage, and for which the legal system provides a remedy (usually monetary damages). Torts can be intentional (e.g., trespass, assault) or unintentional (negligence). Breaches of contract are distinct civil actions and are not classified as torts.

3What are the three essential elements that a plaintiff must prove to establish a cause of action in negligence (the ABC rule)?

A.A criminal act, Breach of contract, and Causation of damage.

B.Agreement between parties, Breach of contract, and Calculated damages.

C.Duty of care owed, Breach of that duty, and Causation of damage resulting from the breach.

D.Assumption of risk, Breach of standard of care, and Contributory negligence.

Explanation: To succeed in a negligence action under common law, the plaintiff must satisfy the 'ABC' rule: (A) A duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (B) The defendant breached the standard of care required by that duty; and (C) The breach caused the plaintiff to suffer actual damage (causation). All three elements must be present; if any element is missing, the action fails.

4The landmark UK case Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) established which fundamental legal principle used in Canadian common law?

A.The 'but-for' test for determining physical causation in commercial contracts.

B.The 'neighbor principle' for determining when a duty of care is owed to another person.

C.The rule of strict liability for bringing dangerous materials onto one's land.

D.The doctrine of vicarious liability of employers for the unauthorized actions of employees.

Explanation: Donoghue v. Stevenson established the 'neighbor principle,' which dictates that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor (defined as persons who are so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation). This is the foundation of the modern duty of care in negligence.

5How do Canadian courts define the standard of care applied to a defendant in a negligence lawsuit?

A.The standard of an extraordinary person who exercises the utmost caution and foresight in all situations.

B.The standard of a reasonable person, which is an objective measurement of what an ordinary, prudent person would do in similar circumstances.

C.The subjective standard of what the specific defendant believed was appropriate at the time of the incident.

D.A statutory standard set by the federal government that remains uniform across all occupations and ages.

Explanation: The standard of care in negligence is measured against the objective standard of the 'reasonable person' (a mythical individual of normal intelligence and prudence). The court asks what a reasonable person would have done, or avoided doing, in the same circumstances. It is not subjective (based on the defendant's own thoughts) nor is it an extraordinary standard of perfect foresight.

6In a negligence action, how is the 'but-for' test utilized by Canadian courts to determine causation?

A.It requires the plaintiff to prove that the injury would not have occurred 'but for' the negligent act or omission of the defendant.

B.It requires the defendant to prove that the accident would have occurred 'but for' the plaintiff's own contributory negligence.

C.It is used to determine whether the damages are too remote and could not have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant.

D.It establishes whether a contract existed between the parties before the tortious act occurred.

Explanation: The 'but-for' test is the primary test for factual causation in Canada. The plaintiff must show on a balance of probabilities that their injury would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's negligence. If the injury would have happened anyway (regardless of the defendant's actions), then factual causation is not established.

7Under Canadian common law, what is the standard burden of proof in a civil liability lawsuit, and who bears it?

A.Beyond a reasonable doubt; borne by the defendant.

B.On a balance of probabilities; borne by the plaintiff.

C.Beyond a reasonable doubt; borne by the plaintiff.

D.On a balance of probabilities; borne by the defendant.

Explanation: In civil liability lawsuits, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, who must establish their case on a 'balance of probabilities.' This means the plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not (greater than 50% probability) that the defendant's negligence caused the damage.

8Under what circumstances does the common law doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' (the thing speaks for itself) historically apply in a negligence claim?

A.When the plaintiff has signed a written waiver releasing the defendant from all liability.

B.When an accident occurs that normally would not happen without negligence, and the instrument causing the damage was under the sole control of the defendant.

C.When the defendant admits liability immediately after the accident occurs, waiving the need for a trial.

D.When a statute explicitly shifts the burden of proof to the driver of a motor vehicle in all accidents.

Explanation: Historically, 'res ipsa loquitur' applied when an accident occurred under circumstances where it is highly probable that it wouldn't have happened without negligence, and the object causing damage was in the exclusive control of the defendant. Although modern Canadian courts (following the Supreme Court decision in Fontaine v. British Columbia) treat it as a matter of common-sense circumstantial inference rather than a formal rule that shifts the burden of proof, it remains a key concept for inferring negligence from the facts of an event.

9Which of the following scenarios best illustrates the application of strict liability under the rule established in Rylands v. Fletcher?

A.A commercial landlord fails to clear ice from a sidewalk, causing a tenant to slip and break a leg.

B.A manufacturer sells a defective toaster that overheats and causes a fire in a customer's kitchen.

C.An owner collects a large volume of water in a reservoir on their land, which escapes and floods a neighboring coal mine.

D.An employee drives a delivery truck negligibly and strikes a pedestrian on a public crosswalk.

Explanation: The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher establishes strict liability for the non-natural use of land. It states that an occupier who brings onto their land, and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The classic example is the escape of water from a reservoir constructed on the defendant's land, flooding the plaintiff's mine.

10Under the principle of vicarious liability, when is an employer legally liable for a tort committed by an employee?

A.Only if the employer explicitly authorized the specific tortious act in writing.

B.Whenever the employee commits a tort, regardless of whether it occurred during work hours or was related to their job.

C.If the employee commits the tort while acting within the course and scope of their employment.

D.Only if the employer was personally negligent in hiring or supervising the employee.

Explanation: Vicarious liability is an indirect legal responsibility where an employer is held liable for the torts committed by their employees, provided the wrongful acts were committed during the course and scope of their employment. It does not require proof of personal fault or negligence on the employer's part, nor does it require explicit authorization.

About the C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 Exam

C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 introduces the student to the legal framework of liability insurance in Canada. As part of the Chartered Insurance Professional (CIP) designation, the course covers the principles of common law and Civil Code of Quebec extra-contractual liability, negligence (the ABC rule), defences, products liability, and general legal principles including contracts and nuisance. It also features a detailed study of liability policy forms, highlighting the Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage form (including Bodily Injury, Property Damage, Personal and Advertising Injury, Medical Payments, and Tenants Legal Liability), habitational personal liability, umbrella policies, and the basics of liability underwriting and claims handling.

Assessment

Multiple-choice examination (100 questions, 2 hours)

Time Limit

2.0 hours

Passing Score

60% course / 55% exam min

Exam Fee

CAD $383 (Insurance Institute of Canada (IIC))

C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 Exam Content Outline

25%

legal-foundations

The Canadian legal system, common law liability, negligence (ABC rule), strict liability, contract law, and tort defences.

15%

quebec-liability

Legal principles of liability and defences specific to the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ).

30%

cgl-policy

The Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage form including Coverage A (BI & PD), Coverage B (Personal/Advertising Injury), Coverage C (Medical Payments), and Coverage D (Tenants Legal Liability).

15%

personal-liability

Homeowners personal liability, premises liability, voluntary medical/property payments, and umbrella/excess coverages.

15%

underwriting-claims

Risk assessment, claims-made vs occurrence triggers, claims investigation, settlement processes, and loss control.

How to Pass the C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 Exam

What You Need to Know

Passing score: 60% course / 55% exam min
Assessment: Multiple-choice examination (100 questions, 2 hours)
Time limit: 2.0 hours
Exam fee: CAD $383

Keys to Passing

Complete 500+ practice questions
Score 80%+ consistently before scheduling
Focus on highest-weighted sections
Use our AI tutor for tough concepts

C13: Insurance Against Liability—Part 1 Study Tips from Top Performers

1Master the 'ABC Rule' for negligence under common law: Duty of care, Breach of duty, and Causation of damage.

2Understand the key articles of the Civil Code of Québec (e.g., Article 1457 regarding extra-contractual liability).

3Learn the difference between CGL Coverage A (BI & PD), B (Personal & Advertising Injury), C (Medical Payments), and D (Tenants Legal Liability). Pay close attention to what each coverage excludes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the passing score for the IIC C13 exam?

The Insurance Institute requires a minimum of 60% overall course grade and at least 55% on the final examination itself to pass.

How is the actual IIC C13 exam structured?

Since April 2024, the C13 final exam is 100 multiple-choice questions (200 marks) completed in 2 hours, combining knowledge-based and scenario-based items. There are no constructed-response or narrative questions on this exam.

Does C13 cover Quebec law?

Yes. The Canadian liability curriculum covers both the Common Law system used across Canada and the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ) extra-contractual liability provisions.