Clear Question, Wrong Answer: Life Policy Voided over Misrepresentation

An insured understated her weight when applying for a life insurance policy.  After the insured’s death, the insurer voided the policy on the basis that there was a material misrepresentation. The court agreed that the understated weight was a misrepresentation and the insured’s actual weight exceeded the allowable range at the time of application. The court found it was acceptable for the insurer to rely on the answer without verification.

Insurance law – Life insurance – Misrepresentation – Void policy – Ambiguity; Duties and liabilities of insured.

LeBreton v. Foresters Life Insurance Co., [2026] N.B.J. No. 10, New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench, January 21, 2026, J.D. Roy J.

The insured obtained a $100,000 term life insurance policy from the insurer. After the insured’s death, the insurer voided the policy, taking the position that she had provided inaccurate information about her weight on the application. The insurer argued that the inaccurate information affected their risk evaluation and amounted to a misrepresentation. Her spouse, the named beneficiary, brought an action challenging the denial. The spouse argued that the denial was unlawful on the basis that the application was ambiguous, the insurer failed to prove her weight at the time of the application, and that the insurer ought to have verified the insured’s weight. The insurer maintained that the question was unambiguous and the misstatement was significant enough to justify voiding the policy.

The court considered two main points: whether the insurer could deny the claim based on the misrepresentation and whether the question regarding weight on the application was ambiguous. Based on medical records showing that her weight had increased over time, the court found that at the time of the application, the insured exceeded the acceptable range. The court also held that insurers are permitted to rely on answers given in an application and are not required to investigate when an applicant answers “no” to a question, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the insurer should have verified the insured’s weight. The court found that the weight question was easy to understand, not misleading, and that an average person could determine whether their weight fell within the standard range. The court concluded that since the incorrect information was relevant to assessing risk, the insurer was justified in voiding the policy.

This case was digested by Aman Taggar and edited by Steven W. Abramson of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact them directly at [email protected] or [email protected].