Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The insurer canceled the life insurance policy due to non-payment after the 30-day grace period expired.

• The plaintiff did not prove he had informed the insurer or his broker of his address change before the default.

• Medical evidence submitted by the insurer showed the plaintiff was uninsurable at the time of the reinstatement request.

• The plaintiff failed to provide counter-expert evidence to challenge the insurer’s medical assessment.

• Contractual clauses aligned with Civil Code provisions on termination and reinstatement of life insurance.

• The Court concluded the insurer acted within its rights and dismissed the claim.

Background of the insurance contract

Jean-Luc Beauchemin purchased a life insurance policy in 1988 that promised a death benefit of $100,000 and a redemption value of $50,000 at age 65. The policy changed hands several times, eventually becoming part of SSQ’s portfolio and later Beneva’s. The contract included standard clauses allowing a 30-day grace period for premium payments, procedures for policy termination, and conditions for reinstatement if the policyholder applied within two years of cancellation.

Missed payment and policy termination

On April 10, 2019, a premium payment failed due to insufficient funds. SSQ notified Beauchemin of the issue by letter, providing a grace period until May 10, 2019, to make the payment. When no payment was received, SSQ canceled the policy effective that same day. The letters were sent to the plaintiff’s last known address, but he claimed not to have received them due to a change of residence.

Request for reinstatement and insurer’s refusal

Nearly two years later, in March 2021, Beauchemin contacted SSQ to request reinstatement. He submitted a completed form and paid the outstanding premiums by the deadline. However, reinstatement was conditional on proving insurability, and after analyzing medical tests, the insurer concluded he did not meet the requirements. Blood work revealed elevated PSA levels and other markers suggesting a possible health issue. The insurer refunded the payment minus administrative costs.

Medical evidence and expert opinion

SSQ’s decision was supported by a detailed report from Josée Malboeuf, an experienced underwriting consultant. Her analysis referenced industry-standard guidelines and explained that Beauchemin's PSA readings and elevated hemoglobin A1C levels posed unacceptable insurance risks. The plaintiff did not file any independent medical evidence or expert reports to refute this assessment. His testimony alone was insufficient to undermine the insurer’s expert opinion.

Allegation of improper notice

Beauchemin argued that SSQ had sent the cancellation notice to the wrong address. The Court acknowledged this error but emphasized that the responsibility to update contact information lay with both the policyholder and his advisor, Bernard Tremblay. The plaintiff did not call Tremblay to testify, nor did he file sworn evidence to establish that Tremblay had been informed of the address change prior to April 2019.

Court’s reasoning and legal basis

The Court found that the termination of the contract was consistent with both the contractual clauses and article 2427 of the Civil Code of Québec. Regarding reinstatement, the Court referred to article 2431 CCQ, which requires proof of insurability. Since Beauchemin failed to meet that condition and did not effectively challenge the insurer’s findings, the Court ruled that the refusal to reinstate was legally justified.

Final decision and costs

The claim was dismissed. The Court ordered Jean-Luc Beauchemin to pay $325 in court costs to Société d’assurance Beneva inc. The decision reaffirmed the insurer’s right to enforce contract terms strictly, especially when clear evidence supported both termination and rejection of reinstatement.