quote:
Interesting, do you think think he also lied on any medical questionnaire that he filled out when he went to see a doctor?

Because if he also lied to the physician, then he's fine. But I seriously doubt he did.

Lots of people lie to insurance companies, very few lie to their medical provider.

But yes, technically, IF there's no record of him ever using tobacco, he could get away with it. That's a pretty big "If" though.

Notice I said notify them of the change, if he does this there will be little fuss and he will simply face a rate increase.

Every situation is different

Here is an example.

My life insurance policy stated I was a smoker, after quitting I had to take a test to have the policy changed, this is well documented.

If I later start smoking again (not happening) there is no intent to deceive and there can be no denial as I never agreed to not smoke in the future and my policy has no notification T&C.

The barristers would line up around the block for this case if a denial occurred.

All this depends on the T&C of the policy and the contestability period and will vary a bit state by state.

The normal way it would sort out is the cumulative amount the policy rate would have increased would be subtracted from any proceeds rather than a blanket denial.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Vols&Shaft83

Throbbing Member

Member since Dec 2012

69954 posts

Posted on 10/21/16 at 8:20 am to cave canem

quote:
Notice I said notify them of the change

I thought you said to notify the company that he started smoking after the policy was already in force. If he does this, he's still attempting to deceive.

quote:
If I later start smoking again (not happening) there is no intent to deceive and there can be no denial as I never agreed to not smoke in the future and my policy has no notification T&C.

The barristers would line up around the block for this case if a denial occurred.

All this depends on the T&C of the policy and the contestability period and will vary a bit state by state.

The normal way it would sort out is the cumulative amount the policy rate would have increased would be subtracted from any proceeds rather than a blanket denial.

I am in no way disagreeing with this. I haven't addressed what the ramifications are (if any) if he engages in hazardous activities or tobacco use after the policy is in force.

And yes, when people quit smoking, I can usually get their premiums reduced significantly, happens all the time, unless they enrolled in the policy in their 20s and quit smoking in their 60s.