Can anyone solve this truth function?

Question

If either husband or wife paid the premium that was due, then the policy is in force and the cost of the accident was covered. If the cost of the accident was covered, they were not forced into bankruptcy. But they were forced into bankruptcy. Therefore, the husband did not pay the premium that was due.
(H,W,P,C,B)
v=or
&=and
~=not
>=if, then
.*.=therefore

Answer 1

HvW>P
P>C
C~B
(((HvW)>P)>C)~B

B.*.~C
~C.*.~P
~P.*.~(HvW)
.*.~H

Not sure in what format you need it. But this constructs the chain and Deconstructs given the result.

Thought I should add since the two below me seem to think the Statement is False.

If the Husband or Wife must pay the policy, and the policy was not paid, then NEITHER the Husband or Wife Paid it.

And The Problem Explicitly states the Policy Does Cover the Cost of The Accident, Avoiding bankruptcy, So it is Not possible that both the Bankruptcy occurs and the Policy was paid. The Mathematical Analysis of what a bankruptcy is is totally irrelevant.
If there is B Then There was not C or P or H or W

The Statement is in fact true.

Answer 2

This is a false statement. On the surface we can glean that neither the husband or wife paid the policy, but there are other situations to consider mathematically.
Bankruptcy occurs, given the variables we are considering, whenever the total cost of the accident exceeds the value of the policy. Given the conditions you have provided:
[Bankruptcy] = [Accident Costs] - [$ Value of Policy]
-or-
B = C - P
P = (H + W)
Based on your scenario, bankruptcy is a logical condition that is arrived at whenever there is a positive balance remaining after the accident costs have been adjusted by the value of the policy.
Of course the above equations also account for the situation where the policy value is 0, which could mean the premiums are not up to date.
In real life, bankruptcy is the financial state where your TOTAL assets exceed your total debts [B = Debts - Assets for all B > 0]. In this scenario, it appears we are only considering the $ value of the policy, else the Bankruptcy equation would be a little more complicated.

NOTE:
In response to the first post, the limits of the bankruptcy state are not explicitly defined, which is the point I was making. We can assume, but unless you are given some hard limits as to what constitutes bankruptcy how can you definitely say that it is irrelevant?

Answer 3

1+1=1
1+0=0 or 0+1=0
neigther wife pay nor husband pay, they were force into bankruptcy.

It is not necessary true husband did not pay