premium – OLHI – Free, impartial help with your life & health insurance complaints

When Mr. N. purchased life insurance in 2000, he explained to his agent that he wanted to pay the same monthly premium for the lifetime of the policy. His agent helped him fill out an application and also provided him with illustrations to show how his premium would never change.

Fifteen years later, Mr. N.’s premiums increased. He contacted the insurance company, asking that his previous premium be reinstated and that he be reimbursed the difference. In the final position letter, Mr. N.’s request was denied. The company pointed to the wording in the contract, which stated the level premium was for the first 10 years of the policy, after which time the cost of insurance could be increased. Mr. N. was given the option to reduce the sum insured, in order to bring his premiums back down to the original cost.

Mr. N. decided to bring this letter to OLHI. OLHI’s Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) reviewed the contract and spoke with Mr. N., who told her that his insurance agent recently told him that he wholly believed he had sold him a level policy for its lifetime. The DRO also saw that the agent’s illustrations clearly indicated a monthly premium for life. She recommended that an OmbudService Officer (OSO) investigate further.

The OSO spoke with both Mr. N. and the insurance company to better understand their positions. She also delved deeper into the contract language, finding multiple examples of conflicting, ambiguous statements. In some instances, the policy stated the cost would be level for the duration of the policy. In others, it stated the cost could be adjusted.

The OSO approached the insurance company, pointing to the legal principle of contra proferentem. This principle states that, where there is unclear language in an insurance contract, consumers’ interpretations of the meaning of the contract are permitted. For this reason, she recommended that Mr. N.’s previous premium be reinstated and that he be reimbursed the difference in price. The insurance company agreed.

Disclaimer: Names, places and facts have been modified in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. This case study is for illustration purposes only. Each complaint OLHI reviews contains different facts and contract wording may vary. As a result, the application of the principles expressed here may lead to different results in different cases.

Mr. M. had a $25,000 term life insurance policy. As the premium rates were about to increase dramatically and affordability was an issue, his insurance agent, who had originally sold him the policy, offered to research more affordable options.

This search proved a challenge. Mr. M. had health issues and, given the risks, few insurers would offer alternative coverage on a single life basis – at least, none that the consumer found affordable. At the end of the exercise, the agent proposed a joint last-to-die policy and wrote up an application for Mr. M. and his common-law partner, Ms. L.

The new policy was delivered and Mr. M. cancelled the previous one. He paid the premiums for just over two years before passing away. Ms. L. made a claim in order to pay final expenses and was surprised to have the claim denied because it was a joint-last-to-die policy. In such a policy, no proceeds are paid out until the death of the second spouse.

Ms. L. followed the insurer’s complaint process, where the insurer upheld its decision to deny the claim. She then brought her complaint to OLHI.

The Dispute Resolution Officer (“DRO”) reviewed the consumers’ documents and found anomalies in the application. The consumers’ statements in the application clearly indicated their intent to use the coverage for final expenses upon Mr. M.’s death and they designated Ms. L. and their daughter as beneficiaries – requirements that could not be met under a joint-last-to-die policy. The DRO recommended that the complaint be escalated to an OmbudService Officer (“OSO”) for further investigation.

The OSO reviewed both the file documents and the analysis from the DRO, and concurred that there were discrepancies in the sales process. He noted a lengthy delay in issuing of the policy and that there was no copy of a Life Insurance Replacement Disclosure form in the file. This disclosure form is required to be provided whenever a consumer replaces one life insurance policy with another. It provides a side-by-side comparison between the old and the new policies and serves to demonstrate that consumers understand the differences between the two policies.

Since recollections from the consumers and the agent differed, this missing form proved to be the crux of the issue.

In his detailed submission to the insurer, the OSO suggested that the lack of a properly completed replacement declaration form deprived Ms. L. and Mr. M. of the full and plain disclosure they were entitled to, and that their decision to purchase the new policy and cancel the previous one was not a fully informed one.

The OSO recommended that the insurer compensate the consumer for the loss of the $25,000 coverage provided by the original policy.

The insurer agreed to do so and the proposed payment was issued to the consumer.

Tag: premium

Contra proferentem (life)

A key disclosure form (life)