In substitution during life insurance, what remedy is available upon discovery that the insured misrepresented his health using a substitute?

• A. File an action for damages because A is guilty of incidental fraud or dolo incidente.
• B. File an action for annulment of contract because A is guilty of causal fraud which vitiated Sun Life's consent.
• C. File an action for declaration of nullity because of the want of consent.
• D. File an action for rescission of contract because it is intended to defraud.

Answer: (B)

Vitiation of consent through fraud is the key idea here. When health information is misrepresented in a life insurance application—especially through a substitute used to mislead—the insurer’s consent to issue the policy is obtained by a falsehood. That kind of fraud affects the very basis on which the insurer agreed to contract, so the contract is voidable rather than automatically void.

Because the misrepresentation is causal to the insurer’s decision, the remedy is annulment of the contract. Annulment recognizes that the contract was entered into under fraudulent consent and allows the court to cancel the agreement, restoring the parties to their precontract positions as if the policy had never been formed.

Why the other options fit less well: seeking damages would address harm caused by the fraud but does not address the status of the contract itself. Declaring nullity for want of consent would imply an absolute lack of consent from the start, which isn’t the precise situation when consent was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation. Rescission is typically for contracts that can be unwound for a different set of grounds and is not the established remedy for voidable contracts arising from fraudulent consent in this context.