• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Blog

Logo 1 Created with Sketch.

  • About
  • Our Lawyers
    • Andrew Wray
    • Juan Echavarria
  • Expertise
    • Employment Law
    • Civil Litigation
  • Blog
  • COVID-19 Resources
  • Contact Us
  • Book a Consultation
Misrepresentations-in-LTD-insurance-Benefits-Wray-Legal

Misrepresentations in LTD Insurance

March 4, 2021 Tags: Long-Term Disability Benefits, LTD Benefits, LTD Insurance Benefits

LTD insurance claim denied due to misrepresentation

Where the insurance provider takes the position that the policy holder misrepresented a fact, or lied, during the application process and there was a subsequent approval of LTD insurance, the insurer will deny benefits. Applicants for insurance coverage have a duty to disclose any material facts requested by the insurer throughout the process to evidence insurability. Where the insurer demonstrates that the policy holder misrepresented a material fact, it will be able to rescind the insurance contract, meaning the policy is voided and no coverage needs to be provided. This is so because the Court will not uphold a policy where the insurer was unable, due to the misrepresentation, to understand the risk undertaken.

A misrepresentation of a material fact is one which would cause a reasonable insurer to either decline coverage or request a higher premium to provide coverage, if the misrepresentation had been known at the time it was underwritten.

The insurer has the onus of proving that the applicant/policy holder misrepresented a material fact. The standard of proof required will depend on the time at which the insurance provider raises the issue. Generally, where the insurer alleges that there was a misrepresentation within the first 2 years of the policy being in effect, the insurance provider only needs to prove that the misrepresentation occurred by error, mistake, or forgetfulness.  However, if more than 2 years have passed, in order to rescind the policy, the insurer must prove that the insured intentionally, or at least recklessly, misrepresented a fact. The latter being a much stricter standard of proof.

Of course, the policy holder’s duty to disclose material facts extends only to facts he or she knows, or at least, should have known. Where the insured is not aware of a fact, even if material to the policy, there can be no misrepresentation. Whether the insured did or did not have knowledge of a material fact which was not disclosed is often the root of contention where the insurance provider wishes to rescind the policy coverage. Generally speaking, the duty to disclose extends to material facts that the applicant knows, or should know, that are actual facts rather than opinions or beliefs. For example, where the applicant suffers from symptoms such as pain and fatigue, it is a fact that the applicant suffers from these symptoms, and therefore he or she must disclose them. However, the applicant is not expected, or required, to self-diagnose or provide any opinion as to the cause of the symptoms, but can also not rely on the belief that he or she is in good health for not disclosing the symptoms. This is so because these are not facts, but only the subjective views of the applicant.

It is important to note that where the insurer establishes that the policy holder misrepresented a material fact, it will be able to rescind the policy, even if the material fact in question is unrelated to the source of the disability claim. For example, where a policy holder makes a claim for LTD benefits due to a physical injury or impairment, and the insurer proves that the policy holder failed to disclose that he or she sought treatment for a mental health condition, the Court may rescind the policy, even though the non-disclosed fact may be unrelated to the injury for which benefits are sought. This will be the case where the Court determines that, had the insurer known of the non-disclosed fact, it would have declined coverage or requested a higher premium. The Court will make this finding based on the objective standard of a reasonable insurer, based on the risk, rather than the specific insurer’s own statements as to whether it would or would not have granted coverage.

Given the high standard imposed by the duty to disclose on insurance applicants, it is important for those seeking LTD benefits to complete applications thoroughly and conduct a detailed review once finalized. This is so because the applicant will be deemed to have read the application and agreed to the truth of its contents.

Where the insurer attempts to rescind the policy due to an allege misrepresentation, the Court will consider the credibility of the parties as to what was and was not disclosed, whether there is a material fact involved, and if so, what a reasonable insurer would do, among other factors. Given the complexity of these inquiries, where coverage is denied on this basis, it is important to consult a lawyer.

As lawyers with extensive expertise in LTD litigation, we often advise our clients regarding their policy agreements, eligibility for benefits, and available remedies. You may contact us at any time with your LTD insurance questions.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • When your employer sells the business
  • Misrepresentations in LTD Insurance
  • Employment Bonus After Termination
  • How will COVID affect notice of termination
  • How do fixed-term contracts affect employment rights upon termination?

Tags

Blog Civil Litigation Covid Employment Law Covid Mental Health Covid Wrongful Termination Employment Employment Law Health and Safety Human Rights Juan Echavarria Just Cause Termination Limitation Period Long-Term Disability Benefits LTD Benefits LTD Insurance Benefits News Resignation Sale of Business Severance Pay Stock Options termination notice Total Disability wrongful dismissal

Footer

Contact Us

181 University Avenue, Suite 2200 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3M7

T 416-642-0460
F 416-363-7875

Contact Page LinkedIn
Book a Consultation






    Please note that contact through our website is for informational purpose only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

    * Required

    Reviews

    • I had the pleasure of working with Andrew & his team and I could not be more thankful for having them represent me during a very trying time. They were very knowledgeable and helped guide me thru the entire process. Going thru any legal issue can be very emotionally draining but knowing I had Andrew on my side def helped ease my anxiety. In the end, Andrew was able to win my dispute and I owe it all to his attention to detail and wealth of knowledge.

      Charlene De Silva

    • Robert Tarantino and his associates at Wray Legal handled my case against my former employer with compassion, ethically sound expert advice in plain language and professional courtesy during my termination process, a stressful event in any working person's life. I was presented with all potential courses of action during my initial meeting prior to making a decision to retain services, and was treated with respect and dignity every step of the way. Wray Legal was able to mediate an acceptable settlement without having to proceed with a formal human rights violation compliant at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Thank you Robert, Andrew and Samantha.

      Ian G.

    • We contracted with Robert Tarantino of Wray Legal to do a respectful workplaces presentation to our organization. This was part of a follow up to a StressAssess.ca survey we had done with all of our staff. Robert’s presentation included: Introduction; Overview – Why ‘Respectful Workplaces’ is an Important Topic; What is a Respectful Workplace?; Occupational Health and Safety Act – workplace harassment; Human Rights Code – discrimination in employment; Fostering a Healthy and Respectful Workplace; and Q & A – Discussion. The presentation was extremely well done, very engaging and included excellent examples. Robert did an excellent job and I would highly recommend his services.

      Michael Roche

      CEO, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers

    • I am grateful to have worked with Andrew Wray on a Third Party Claim that was filed against me. While we arrived at a very amicable conclusion, it was a rather complex route to get there. Andrew was extremely patient with both me and the other party. His legal advice was insightful and he always acted in an extremely professional manner. I asked a lot of questions regarding law and process and Andrew always took the time to ensure that I was comfortable with both. I really had the feeling that he was actually working for me and looking out for my best interests. I would have no reservations about contacting Andrew again for help, nor would I have any reservations in recommending him to a friend or colleague. Many thanks!!

      KM

    • Andrew Wray helped me settle a dispute with my past employer which lead to a healthy settlement. I would recommend Andrew to anyone looking for a professional and cost-effective litigator.

      A Google User

    • Andrew Wray came highly recommended and now I know why! Andrew took a personal and very supportive approach as he helped to guide me through a long and challenging labour hearing process that had already cost me too many sleepless nights. His demonstrated understanding of the complex legal and procedural issues gave me a tremendous confidence. Having never previously testified or given evidence, his advice on what I could expect on the stand was worth its weight in gold. I was kepy completely in the loop with regard to strategies and next steps, and was always made to feel like I was steering the ship - with Andrew as my formidable engine. Oh, and by the way, we won the case! :)

      Jamie S.

    © 2021 Wray Legal LLP
    Site by Cameron Duncalfe
    Privacy Policy