General Insurance✓ Verified · outline & fact-checked · Sep 2026Difficulty 2/5
An applicant for life and health coverage indicates on the application that he is an amateur competitive boxer. Which underwriting response is most likely?
Select an option to reveal the answer and the full 3-part explanation — free, no signup.
Answer & full 3-part explanation (select an option above, or peek)
Why A is correct
Hazardous avocations — boxing, skydiving, scuba diving, motor racing — increase the chance of accidental injury or death. Underwriters respond by gathering more information through a special hazardous-activity questionnaire, then may charge a higher premium (rating), add an avocational exclusion, or limit coverage. The insurer may decline or rate a new application based on the avocation; it does not cancel existing policies because of it, and it is never required to ignore the hazard or issue at standard rates.
Why the other options are wrong
- B) Combat sports materially increase injury risk; insurers routinely treat them as underwriting-relevant.
- C) No insurer is required to issue at standard rates; the applicant's avocation justifies rating or exclusion.
- D) Cancellation of existing policies is governed by policy provisions and law; a newly disclosed avocation on a new application does not cancel existing coverage.
Memory hook
Boxing = red flag. Expect a questionnaire, a rating, or a ring-side exclusion.