Failure to disclose pregnancy constitutes reticence

ATA/410/1996Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberJul 31, 1996Confirmed

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

A health-insurance applicant failed to disclose a pregnancy after more than 110 days of amenorrhea. The court held that she could not in good faith ignore the pregnancy, or at least a pathological state, and that her silence therefore amounted to reticence. The insurer’s position was upheld.

Omnilex headnote

LAMA art. 5; reticence in health-insurance application; an applicant who, after more than 110 days of amenorrhea, does not disclose a pregnancy cannot invoke good faith ignorance of the pregnancy or of a pathological condition. Such omission concerns a material fact and constitutes reticence when it is not reported at the time of application.

Full text

Descripteurs

ASSURANCE SOCIALE; AM; VIOLATION DE L'OBLIGATION D'ANNONCER; RESERVE D'ASSURANCE; GROSSESSE; ASSU

Normes

LAMA.5

Résumé

On ne peut admettre qu'après une aménorrhée de plus de 110 jours, une candidate à l'assurance-maladie puisse de bonne foi ignorer sa grossesse ou, à tout le moins, un état pathologique. Le fait de ne pas renseigner à ce sujet constitue une réticence.

Keywords

social insurancehealth insurancereticenceduty to disclosepregnancyamenorrhea

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the applicant's failure to disclose the pregnancy when applying for health insurance constituted reticence.

Extracted holding

Yes. After more than 110 days of amenorrhea, the applicant could not in good faith ignore the pregnancy, or at least a pathological condition, and the omission amounted to reticence.

Extracted reasoning

The court considered that the duration of amenorrhea was such that the applicant should have been aware of her pregnancy or at minimum of a health disorder; nondisclosure of this relevant circumstance breached the duty to inform.

Failure to disclose pregnancy constitutes reticenceAI generated