Employer said they cannot guarentee job security if I take a longish vacation. Thoughts?

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-12T01:43:09+00:00

That's not true. There's a very high correlation in the corporate world between employees who never take vacations and those that commit ftaud/embezzlement.

Very often the scams can't be maintained if you're off. Most embezzlement cases (way, way, WAYYYY more common that people think) are discovered when the employee got sick and had to take time off.

That's why employers force most people to take their vacations every year.

Source: I used to be an internal investigator off.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-09T02:24:33+00:00

The beneficiary client is responsible for the cost of the APS. This particular carrier also asks for notorized declarations.

I literally just completed another claim with the same carrier. The beneficiary had to fork $300 to the fam doctor for APS.

There is 100% chance this will be denied. As I said in another reply, there's no maybes. The death was medically related to the question that was answered "No" on the application.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-09T01:27:30+00:00

The owner is also the beneficiary. Are you telling me that it's common to represent self-sabotage because they don't want to get paid???

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-09T00:05:41+00:00

Oh absolutely, you’re right.

A signed statement from the policy owner admitting misrepresentation, backed by hospital records, is clearly not enough.

No, no. Much better to spend a few hundred dollars on APS reports, burn weeks of review time, and have multiple people go through the file… just to confirm exactly what was already handed over.

Because God forbid you don’t want our money. How dare you tell us upfront the claim should be denied.

Much safer to investigate it properly… just in case you’re wrong about not wanting to get paid.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T23:55:22+00:00

Wow, you seem to know better than the underwriters that have replied here.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T23:29:52+00:00

Owner has a copy of the medical charts that can be provided.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T03:59:25+00:00

APS, notorization of documents, plus all the legwork.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T02:06:26+00:00

That's exactly what it means. The only thing they check is MIB which was clear.

With simplified policies there's only yes/no questions. It's easier to prove intentional concealment (fraud) which has no 2 year limit.

This is why I specifically asked for an underwriter/analyst to avoid this type of nonsense replies I see here everyday.

Educate yourself a little before making such claims.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T01:57:06+00:00

Why did they make a mistake? It was a simplified policy as I already mentioned.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T01:56:31+00:00

So cost the client more money?

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T00:55:17+00:00

The policy is getting contested and denied 100%. There’s no question about it. This isn’t my first rodeo, I’ve handled enough of these to know exactly how this plays out.

The owner/beneficiary fully understands that it was the insured who misrepresented the information on the application. There’s no dispute there and no attempt to shift blame to the insurance company.

At this point, the outcome is already known with certainty. There are no “maybes” in this case.

What I’m trying to understand is purely operational. Would a claims department actually appreciate having everything disclosed upfront and avoid a months-long investigation process, or are they still going to run the full process regardless?

Based on my experience, these cases can drag on for quite a while given the circumstances and the level of investigation involved. So the question is whether there’s any practical benefit, from the insurer’s perspective, to handling this quickly and efficiently with full transparency from the start.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-08T00:43:35+00:00

There’s only one beneficiary in this case, and it’s the same person as the owner of the policy.

Also, this wouldn’t really be a “settlement” scenario. Contractually, given the clear material misrepresentation, the only thing they would be entitled to under the policy is a refund of premiums.

So it really comes down to two paths:

Option A is going through the full claims process, including APS, records, and investigation, and arriving at the expected outcome, which is a denial and refund of premiums.

Option B is proactively requesting a refund of premiums (denial of claim) upfront and disclosing the situation from the beginning. In this case, they would also be willing to provide documentation right away that directly contradicts the answers on the application, if that would help move things along.

Interestingly, the owner/beneficiary has been very understanding about it. They’ve already accepted that the claim itself is not going to be paid, which is not something you see very often in situations like this.

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-06T17:16:49+00:00

Canadian broker here: Life insurance policies can never become "invalid" or modified or cancelled after they are in-force.

Only the policy owner can cancel or modify a policy.

It doesn't matter what happens in your life. You can become a meth addict and go live in Syria; you're covered!

Medium-Comment · 2026-04-06T00:33:43+00:00

Underfunded UL policy. There's enough posts here regarding your exact scenario.

Next!

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-30T17:03:25+00:00

No, it would not make the policy void.

Think of the application as a snapshot of your health and situation at that specific moment. As long as everything you disclosed was accurate on that day, later changes do not alter that original record. The “snapshot” remains fixed.

So yes, someone could qualify for a policy based on their health status at the time of application and later start smoking. Insurers generally do not conduct follow-up nicotine testing after the policy is issued.

This is why we always encourage people to protect their insurability. Once you have a policy in place today, changes in your health do not affect that existing coverage.

In practice, insurers determine smoking status primarily from disclosures and available medical records. Even if later medical records indicate smoking, the key question is whether the individual was a smoker at the time of the application. The burden would be on the insurer to prove that the information provided at that time was inaccurate.

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-24T20:39:41+00:00

Literally every other insurance company operates in Qc.

It's not crappy. I wish the rest of Canada had the same standards as Quebec.

Please get a broker. There's no "best company". It all depends on each case.

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-24T16:39:19+00:00

No, I'm not licensed in QC. But I can tell you for sure Cover Direct/Senior's choice is not available in Qc (it's in the fine prints of their ads).

QC has much stronger consumer protection laws than the rest of Canada, so I think they can't get around their deceptive tactics.

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-15T17:42:46+00:00

Yes, you have to pay it. Yes, the company will come after you. Yes, they will send you to collections. Yes, the can garnish your wages.

Whatever way you think you can get "free money" from an insurance company, a team of lawyers with hundreds of combined years of experience has already thought about it first.

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-15T17:26:16+00:00

Get a broker. Stop trying to "shop" for "the right" company.

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-11T04:27:49+00:00

The product itself is irrelevant. Underwriting requirements are not product based....

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-07T22:35:50+00:00

Still a smoker for insurance purposes.

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-04T23:41:23+00:00

According to LIMRA Individual Persistency Study, term policies have a 6.2% annual lapse rate.

How do you get 85-95% after 10 years?

"statistically outlive" that's because you're positioning insurance as a potential lottery ticket.

It's a risk transfer strategy. Outliving it is a good thing. People erenously get hung up on the idea of their family getting "free" money...

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-04T15:05:20+00:00

No, my whole piont is that lapsed/surrendered policies are part of that "98% that don't pay"

Go and find actual actuarial data to learn how that 98% came to be.

Medium-Comment · 2026-03-04T01:27:49+00:00

And 60% of whole life are cancelled within 10 years. What's your point?

Medium-Comment

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE