IFSE Institute LLQP Exam - Topic 1 Question 23 Discussion

Actual exam question for IFSE Institute's LLQP exam

Question #: 23
Topic #: 1

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?

ASince 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.

BThe insurance company can void the contract under the contestability clause, and nopremiums would be returned to Gerard.

CGerard can admit the mistake to the insurance company to ensure they cannot void the policy due to incomplete information at time of application.

DSince the policy was taken out six years ago, the insurance company can void the policy under the mistake clause.

Show Suggested 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:

Submit Cancel

Fernanda

1 month ago

I’m leaning towards A as well. Fairness matters here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hyman

1 month ago

D seems unlikely. Six years is a long time for a mistake clause.

upvoted 0 times

...

Benedict

2 months ago

I agree with Mike. Gerard didn’t mean to hide anything.

upvoted 0 times

...

Matthew

2 months ago

C sounds risky. Admitting a mistake could backfire.

upvoted 0 times

...

Aleta

2 months ago

I think A is the best choice. They need proof of fraud.

upvoted 0 times

...

Amalia

2 months ago

D) might be a stretch, six years is a long time.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ellen

3 months ago

C) is a smart move, admitting the mistake could help.

upvoted 0 times

...

Julieta

3 months ago

Wait, Gerard didn't mention migraines? That's surprising!

upvoted 0 times

...

Marguerita

3 months ago

I disagree, B) seems more likely with the contestability clause.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lili

3 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

3 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

4 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

4 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

4 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

4 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

4 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

5 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

5 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

5 months ago

A) sounds right, they need proof of fraud.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosio

5 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

5 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

6 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

6 months ago

I feel like B makes sense too. They can void it under contestability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wayne

6 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

6 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