b) Sue是Bling Bling with Good Luck Ltd公司的独家贸易商，为该公司承保了5,000,000美元的偷窃、火灾等险。然而，很快苏成立了一个独立的法律实体Bling Bling Pty有限公司，她与该公司签订了一份商业销售合同。这表明风险转移的唯一贸易公司。与此同时，保险索赔和保险权利也转移到Bling Bling Pty Ltd。然而，这里并没有提及是否将与独家经营者所投保的保险转让给注册公司。
当宝灵宝利有限公司(Bling Bling Pty Ltd .)发生盗窃时，保险金额低于实际盗窃价值。这起盗窃案据称价值50万美元，但当Bling Bling Pty Ltd.提出索赔时，好运有限公司拒绝支付这笔钱。独资企业有一个最大的缺点，那就是作为一个无限责任公司，业主必须先支付所有的债权人，然后再考虑利润，如果清算。在本例中，独家经营者被视为一家私人有限公司，盗窃发生在该公司成立后。该保险由好运有限公司承保，在盗窃发生时是合法有效的。很明显，Bling Bling Pty有限公司有权向好运有限公司索偿保险金额，因为这是一份有效的保险金额协议，而且由于窃贼偷走了价值50万美元的股票，该公司可以而且必须向索赔人支付索赔金额。
本研究的结论是，虽然公司正处于清盘阶段，并由清盘人负责清盘，但债权人仍会继续要求发还贷款，其中一种方法是向好运有限公司追讨被盗款项，并向优先债权人偿还欠款。因此，Sue伪装成Bling Bling Pty Ltd有权向Good Luck Ltd提出保险索赔，并可以向Good Luck Ltd强制执行索赔。
b) Sue, as a sole trader insured the company Bling Bling with Good Luck Ltd for an amount of $5,000,000 against theft, fire and the like. However, soon Sue formed a separate legal entity Bling Bling Pty Ltd with whom she entered into a business sale contract. This indicates the transfer of risk of the sole trader to the company. Along with it the insurance claim and the rights over the insurance also gets transferred to Bling Bling Pty Ltd. It is however not mentioned here whether the insurance done with the sole trader is transferred to the incorporated company.
When there is a burglary in the premises of Bling Bling Pty Ltd, the sum insured was below the actual burglary value. The burglary was claimed to be of the value $500,000 which Good Luck Ltd is refusing to pay when claimed by Bling Bling Pty Ltd. A sole trader has one of the worst disadvantage and that is of being an unlimited liability company and the owner having to pay all the creditors first and then lastly consider the profits in case if liquidation. Here in this case, the sole trader is seen to be converted into a private limited company and the burglary took place after the company is already incorporated. The insurance is done with Good Luck Ltd and is legitimate and in force when the burglary took place. This is evident that Bling Bling Pty Ltd is entitled to claim the insurance amount from Good Luck Ltd as it is a valid agreement for the insured amount and since the burglars stole stocks valued as $500,000 it can and must pay its claimant the claimed amount.
It is concluded here that though the company is under liquidation and under the care of a liquidator, the creditors will keep demanding their credit payments, and one of the ways is to recover the burglary amount from Good Luck Ltd and repay the priority creditors their due. Thus, Sue in disguise of Bling Bling Pty Ltd has the right to claim the insurance claim from Good Luck Ltd and can enforce the claim on Good Luck Ltd.