IFSE Institute Updated LLQP Exam Questions and Answers by kyrie

When a beneficiary is designated as "revocable" and predeceases the policyholder, their share of the benefit typically reverts to the surviving beneficiaries rather than the deceased beneficiary’s estate. In this case, since Michelle has predeceased Danny, her portion of the benefit is divided equally between Donna-Joe and Stephanie, the remaining beneficiaries. Therefore, each of them would receive 50% of the total death benefit, which is $500,000. If the beneficiaries had been designated as "irrevocable" or if there were specific contingent beneficiaries, different rules might apply​​.

=================

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation: Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) governs unsolicited electronic communications, including emails for commercial purposes (Sections 6–8). Contrary to option A, CASL does not prohibit all email solicitation; it allows it withprior consent (express or implied) or under specific exemptions (e.g., existing business relationships). Juliette has no prior relationship with the prospect, and Pierre’s referral does not constitute implied consent under CASL, as consent must come from the recipient (Section 10). Option B is correct because Juliette must obtain the prospect’s consent before sending an unsolicited email, aligning with CASL’s opt-in requirement. Option C is incorrect, as Pierre has no legal obligation to facilitate the contact, though it might be courteous. Option D is impractical and not required by law. The Ethics and Professional Practice manual reinforces that advisors must respect privacy laws and obtain consent before initiating contact, making Juliette’s proposed action non-compliant without prior approval.

In Ontario, the pension legislation stipulates that a spouse is entitled to receive a minimum of 50% of the member’s pension benefits as a survivor benefit if the member dies. This applies to defined benefit pension plans (DBPP), which provide a predetermined benefit upon retirement.Therefore, as the spouse of Maria, Juan would be entitled to receive at least half of Maria’s pension upon her death, as specified by Ontario pension regulations. This survivor benefit is a guaranteed right and requires consent from both spouses for any reduction or waiver. Options C and D are incorrect as Ontario law mandates a minimum 50% survivor benefit without provision for reduction to 25%, and Juan's entitlement is tied to their marital status and statutory rights, which may not apply if they are separated or divorced at the time of Maria's death. Option A is incorrect because Ontario legislation does not provide for an increased benefit by waiving the survivor benefit​​.

Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation with Exact Extract from Documents and Guides:

A joint life insurance policy can be either "first-to-die" or "last-to-die." TheIFSE Ethics and Professional Practice Course (Common Law)explains that a first-to-die policy pays the death benefit upon the death of the first insured, typically to the surviving insured, while a last-to-die policy pays upon the death of the second insured, often to a contingent beneficiary. Here, the policy’s purpose (to benefit the survivor for mortgage and expenses) suggests a first-to-die structure. However, Mark and Jesse died simultaneously in the crash. In such cases, the policy pays the full benefit to the contingent beneficiary (Louis) as if one death triggered the payout. The coverage is $450,000, not split (A), multiplied (C), or doubled (D). Thus, Louis receives $450,000, making B correct.