Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IFSE Institute LLQP Exam - Topic 1 Question 23 Discussion

Six years ago, Gerard, aged 28, purchased a life insurance policy.Gerard just got married to Tanya, and they both want to purchase more insurance. Reviewing Gerard's policy, Tanya notices that Gerard neglected to mention that he had migraines due to concussions suffered from playing football when he was a teenager. Gerard did not intentionally neglect to mention the migraines as the migraines were never an ongoing issue once he stopped playing football.Which statement is true?
A) Since the policy was taken out six years ago, the insurance company would have to prove that Gerard made a fraudulent material misrepresentation, or pay the policy's death benefit.
B) The insurance company can void the contract under the contestability clause, and nopremiums would be returned to Gerard.
C) Gerard can admit the mistake to the insurance company to ensure they cannot void the policy due to incomplete information at time of application.
D) Since the policy was taken out six years ago, the insurance company can void the policy under the mistake clause.

IFSE Institute LLQP Exam - Topic 1 Question 23 Discussion

Actual exam question for IFSE Institute's LLQP exam
Question #: 23
Topic #: 1
[All LLQP Questions]

Six years ago, Gerard, aged 28, purchased a life insurance policy.

Gerard just got married to Tanya, and they both want to purchase more insurance. Reviewing Gerard's policy, Tanya notices that Gerard neglected to mention that he had migraines due to concussions suffered from playing football when he was a teenager. Gerard did not intentionally neglect to mention the migraines as the migraines were never an ongoing issue once he stopped playing football.

Which statement is true?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Lindsey at Nov 20, 2025, 03:31 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium LLQP Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Fernanda
3 months ago
I’m leaning towards A as well. Fairness matters here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hyman
3 months ago
D seems unlikely. Six years is a long time for a mistake clause.
upvoted 0 times
...
Benedict
3 months ago
I agree with Mike. Gerard didn’t mean to hide anything.
upvoted 0 times
...
Matthew
3 months ago
C sounds risky. Admitting a mistake could backfire.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleta
4 months ago
I think A is the best choice. They need proof of fraud.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amalia
4 months ago
D) might be a stretch, six years is a long time.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellen
4 months ago
C) is a smart move, admitting the mistake could help.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julieta
4 months ago
Wait, Gerard didn't mention migraines? That's surprising!
upvoted 0 times
...
Marguerita
5 months ago
I disagree, B) seems more likely with the contestability clause.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lili
5 months ago
The insurance company is probably going to void the policy no matter what. Might as well go with Option B and get it over with.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gladys
5 months ago
Option C is the best choice. Gerard should be honest with the insurance company to avoid any issues down the line.
upvoted 0 times
...
Louvenia
5 months ago
I agree with Option B. Gerard should have been upfront about his medical history, even if the migraines were not an ongoing issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alethea
5 months ago
I vaguely recall that after a certain period, they can't just void the policy, but I can't remember if that’s related to the mistake clause or something else.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefan
6 months ago
I feel like admitting the mistake could be a good move for Gerard, but I’m not sure if it guarantees anything with the insurance company.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oretha
6 months ago
I think option A sounds right because they have to prove fraud, but I’m not completely confident about the specifics.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nelida
6 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'm not entirely sure which option is the best approach. I'll have to review the details carefully and consider the implications of each choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fredric
6 months ago
I'm leaning towards option A. Since the policy was taken out 6 years ago, the insurance company would have to prove that Gerard made a fraudulent misrepresentation, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margery
6 months ago
I think the key here is whether Gerard intentionally withheld the information about the migraines. If it was truly an oversight, then option C might be the way to go and have him admit the mistake to the insurance company.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dana
6 months ago
A) sounds right, they need proof of fraud.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosio
7 months ago
I remember something about the contestability clause, but I'm not sure if it applies here since it's been six years.
upvoted 0 times
...
Augustine
7 months ago
Option B seems the most reasonable. The insurance company should be able to void the contract due to the contestability clause.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicia
7 months ago
Haha, I bet Gerard wishes he had just played soccer instead of football! Option B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tandra
7 months ago
I feel like B makes sense too. They can void it under contestability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wayne
7 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused on this one. I'm not sure if the time frame of 6 years makes a difference or not. I'll have to think it through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurena
8 months ago
I'm pretty sure the answer is B. The insurance company can void the contract under the contestability clause since Gerard didn't disclose the migraines, even if it was unintentional.
upvoted 0 times
Barney
2 months ago
Still feels unfair to Gerard though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ming
2 months ago
Exactly, the contestability clause is strict.
upvoted 0 times
...
Romana
2 months ago
Intent doesn’t matter in these cases, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Jarvis
2 months ago
But what if he didn’t mean to hide it?
upvoted 0 times
...
Abel
3 months ago
I think B makes sense. They can void it for non-disclosure.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel