Browse Certification Practice Tests by Exam Family

FP II: Insurance Planning

Try 10 focused FP II questions on Insurance Planning, with answers and explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.

On this page

Open the matching Securities Prep practice page for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Topic snapshot

FieldDetail
Exam routeFP II
IssuerCSI
Topic areaInsurance Planning
Blueprint weight10%
Page purposeFocused sample questions before returning to mixed practice

How to use this topic drill

Use this page to isolate Insurance Planning for FP II. Work through the 10 questions first, then review the explanations and return to mixed practice in Securities Prep.

PassWhat to doWhat to record
First attemptAnswer without checking the explanation first.The fact, rule, calculation, or judgment point that controlled your answer.
ReviewRead the explanation even when you were correct.Why the best answer is stronger than the closest distractor.
RepairRepeat only missed or uncertain items after a short break.The pattern behind misses, not the answer letter.
TransferReturn to mixed practice once the topic feels stable.Whether the same skill holds up when the topic is no longer obvious.

Blueprint context: 10% of the practice outline. A focused topic score can overstate readiness if you recognize the pattern too quickly, so use it as repair work before timed mixed sets.

Sample questions

These questions are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: Insurance Planning

Leah, age 50, wants CAD 600,000 of life insurance to help equalize her estate and cover the expected tax bill on a cottage at death. Her need is permanent, not temporary. She has strong cash flow now, but expects employment income to drop when she semi-retires in 10 years, so she wants premiums that will remain predictable for life. She does not want to choose or monitor investment options inside the policy. She would like the policy to build value and would welcome dividend potential if the insurer performs well. Which policy design is the best recommendation?

  • A. Universal life policy with investment accounts
  • B. Participating whole life policy
  • C. Non-participating whole life policy
  • D. Term-to-100 policy

Best answer: B

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: Participating whole life best fits a permanent estate-liquidity need when the client wants predictable lifetime premiums, guaranteed values, insurer-managed policy performance, and the possibility of dividends. It also builds cash value, which is more consistent with her stated preferences than term-to-100 or a more investment-driven universal life design.

Participating whole life is usually the best fit when a client needs permanent coverage and prefers guarantees over flexibility. Leah’s insurance need is tied to death, so the coverage must last for life; she also wants premiums that stay predictable after semi-retirement, does not want to manage policy investments, and likes the idea of value growth plus possible dividends. Participating whole life provides permanent coverage, level guaranteed premiums, guaranteed cash values, and non-guaranteed dividends declared by the insurer. By contrast, universal life emphasizes funding and investment flexibility, term-to-100 emphasizes low permanent death-benefit cost, and non-participating whole life gives guarantees without dividend potential. The deciding point is that participating whole life is the only design that satisfies all of her stated preferences at once.

  • The non-participating whole life option meets the permanent and guarantee needs, but it misses the client’s interest in dividend potential.
  • The universal life option offers flexibility, but it introduces more responsibility for investment selection and more performance uncertainty.
  • The term-to-100 option can lower permanent insurance cost, but it generally does not build meaningful cash value or offer dividends.

It best matches a permanent need for predictable lifetime premiums, insurer-managed policy performance, cash value growth, and possible dividends.


Question 2

Topic: Insurance Planning

Maya, 46, owns an incorporated consulting business. She wants permanent life insurance mainly to create estate liquidity for her spouse, but she also wants the option to access policy value if business cash flow weakens. She is comparing two participating whole life policies: one uses dividends to buy paid-up additions and includes a guaranteed insurability rider; the other applies dividends to reduce premiums and has no rider. The insurer’s illustration shows higher projected values under the first policy, but dividends are not guaranteed. Which advisor action best aligns with sound financial-planning practice?

  • A. Recommend the premium-reduction policy to preserve business cash flow without further analysis.
  • B. Document her priority among estate value, flexibility, and premiums, then explain how each feature changes those outcomes before recommending.
  • C. Recommend the higher illustrated policy because estate liquidity is her main objective.
  • D. Leave dividend options and riders for the insurer to explain at policy delivery.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The best practice is to connect policy features directly to Maya’s planning trade-offs before making a recommendation. Paid-up additions, premium reduction, and riders can materially change long-term death benefit growth, cash value access, and out-of-pocket cost, and illustrated dividends must be treated as non-guaranteed assumptions.

When permanent insurance is intended to support both estate liquidity and possible access to policy value, the advisor should not recommend based only on the illustration or the current premium. Participating policy dividend options and riders can materially change the policy’s usefulness: paid-up additions may build death benefit and cash value over time, while premium reduction lowers current outlay; a rider may add future flexibility only if it fits the client’s expected needs. Good planning practice is to document the client’s priorities and assumptions, explain which elements are guaranteed versus illustrated, and confirm the client understands the trade-off among liquidity, cost, control, and long-term protection. Focusing only on the higher illustration is the closest error because it ignores both the non-guaranteed nature of dividends and Maya’s secondary need for flexibility.

  • Higher illustration is insufficient because non-guaranteed dividends do not by themselves determine the best policy.
  • Lower current premium may help cash flow, but it can weaken long-term estate protection or value buildup.
  • Deferring feature review fails because dividend options, riders, and other provisions should be understood before advice is accepted.

Because dividend options and riders materially change cost, growth, and flexibility, the advisor should match them to Maya’s goals and confirm her understanding before recommending.


Question 3

Topic: Insurance Planning

Priya and Marc each own 50% of a private corporation. Their shareholder agreement requires the corporation to redeem a deceased owner’s shares. Both families already have adequate personal coverage for income replacement. They want the life insurance solution that best fits this business liquidity need. Which option is most appropriate?

  • A. Personally owned insurance on each shareholder, with the estate as beneficiary.
  • B. Corporately owned insurance on each shareholder, with the corporation as beneficiary.
  • C. Personally owned term insurance on each shareholder, with the spouse as beneficiary.
  • D. A personally owned joint last-to-die policy for each shareholder and spouse.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The deciding factor is where the death benefit must be available. Because the corporation is required to redeem the shares, the best fit is coverage owned by the corporation and payable to the corporation, rather than coverage designed for family or estate needs.

Life insurance can address either a personal planning problem or a business planning problem, so the policy structure should match the obligation being funded. In this case, the obligation is corporate: the corporation must redeem a deceased shareholder’s shares under the shareholder agreement. A corporately owned policy with the corporation as beneficiary places the proceeds directly under business control and makes the funding available where it is needed.

Personal ownership is more appropriate for goals such as family income replacement, estate liquidity, or support for survivors. Those uses may still be important, but they do not directly solve a corporate share-redemption need. The key takeaway is to match policy ownership and beneficiary designation to the party that needs the cash.

  • Spouse beneficiary addresses personal survivor protection, not the corporation’s need to fund a share redemption.
  • Estate beneficiary may help the estate, but it does not place the proceeds directly under corporate control.
  • Joint last-to-die is typically used for estate funding at second death, not for a business obligation triggered at first death.

The corporation has the redemption obligation, so it should own the coverage and receive the proceeds directly.


Question 4

Topic: Insurance Planning

Priya and Marc, both 42, have two children ages 7 and 10. Their advisor estimates they need $1,400,000 of coverage for about 20 years to replace income, retire the $620,000 mortgage, and help fund future education, plus $350,000 of lifelong coverage to provide liquidity for tax and estate costs on a cottage at the second death. They want the best fit by coverage duration while keeping premiums manageable. Which strategy is most suitable?

  • A. Buy $1,400,000 of 20-year term and $350,000 of permanent life.
  • B. Buy $1,750,000 of permanent life.
  • C. Buy $1,750,000 of 20-year term.
  • D. Buy $620,000 of decreasing term and $350,000 of permanent life.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: A proper life insurance needs analysis separates temporary needs from permanent ones. Income replacement, mortgage repayment, and education funding are usually time-limited, while a predictable estate tax or liquidity need is ongoing and better matched with permanent coverage.

The key planning concept is matching the type and amount of insurance to the duration of each need. In this case, income replacement, mortgage payoff, and education funding are temporary obligations that should decline or disappear over roughly 20 years, so term insurance is the efficient solution for that portion. The expected tax and estate cost on the cottage is a permanent need because it can arise whenever the second death occurs, so permanent life insurance is the better fit for that amount. A blended strategy usually gives the family adequate protection now without overpaying for lifelong coverage they do not need on the temporary portion. The closest alternative is all term coverage, but that can leave the estate short if death occurs after the term expires.

  • All permanent coverage addresses both need categories, but it does not best satisfy the stated goal of matching duration while keeping premiums manageable.
  • All term coverage covers the temporary obligations well, but it may expire before the permanent estate liquidity need arises.
  • Mortgage-focused coverage is too narrow because the analysis must also include income replacement and education funding, not just debt and estate costs.

This matches temporary needs with term insurance and the permanent estate liquidity need with lifelong coverage.


Question 5

Topic: Insurance Planning

An advisor has completed fact finding for Priya and Marc. Priya earns $165,000, Marc earns $70,000, they have a $480,000 mortgage, two children ages 7 and 10, RESP savings that will cover only half of expected education costs, and a cottage with an estimated $220,000 accrued gain that they want to keep in the family. Existing life coverage includes $200,000 group insurance on Priya and $150,000 personal term on Marc. Before recommending any policy, what is the best next step?

  • A. Use a salary multiple now and adjust later for taxes.
  • B. Recommend 20-year term based mainly on income and the mortgage.
  • C. Update wills and beneficiary designations before calculating coverage needs.
  • D. Build a layered needs analysis for each spouse, then net existing resources.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The best next step is to quantify the total life insurance need before discussing product type. That analysis should include income replacement, debt repayment, education funding shortfalls, and tax or estate liquidity needs, then subtract existing insurance and other available resources.

The next step is a full capital-needs analysis, not a product recommendation. In FP II, life insurance need is built by estimating what the survivor or estate would require if either spouse dies: ongoing income replacement, debt retirement, education funding gaps, and liquidity for tax and estate costs, including tax that may arise from the cottage’s accrued gain. After that, the advisor nets out existing insurance and any available assets to identify the actual shortfall.

  • Estimate income replacement needs for each spouse.
  • Add lump-sum needs such as the mortgage and education gap.
  • Add permanent needs such as terminal tax and estate liquidity.
  • Subtract current coverage and liquid resources.

Only after this sizing work should the advisor discuss whether term insurance, permanent insurance, or a combination fits the need.

  • Premature product choice fails because a 20-year term recommendation is made before quantifying education, tax, and estate needs.
  • Wrong sequence fails because wills and beneficiary reviews are important, but they do not replace calculating the insurance shortfall.
  • Rule-of-thumb shortcut fails because salary multiples can miss debt, education, and terminal tax exposure.

A proper needs analysis quantifies temporary and permanent obligations for each life insured, then offsets available coverage and assets before any product recommendation.


Question 6

Topic: Insurance Planning

Amira, 49, owns 50% of an incorporated engineering firm. A draft shareholder agreement says the surviving shareholder should buy the deceased owner’s shares, but it does not specify insurance funding. Amira also wants her spouse to have enough cash to retire the $420,000 mortgage and replace family income if she dies. Which action best aligns with sound financial planning?

  • A. Analyze personal and business needs separately, document assumptions, and coordinate ownership with legal and tax advisors.
  • B. Delay all insurance recommendations until the shareholder agreement is fully rewritten.
  • C. Use one corporate-owned policy with Amira’s spouse as beneficiary for both objectives.
  • D. Prioritize only personal coverage now and revisit business funding after a new valuation.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The best planning action is to separate Amira’s family protection need from the business-continuation need. Those uses of life insurance often require different coverage amounts, owners, beneficiaries, and legal coordination, so assumptions should be documented and implementation should be coordinated with tax and legal advisors.

A core life-insurance planning principle is to match the policy structure to the objective. Amira has a personal need for mortgage repayment and family income protection, and a business need to fund a shareholder succession arrangement. Those are different risks, so they should be quantified separately rather than forced into one catch-all solution.

In practice, a planner should:

  • identify the personal coverage required for the spouse and family
  • identify the business coverage required for the share-purchase obligation
  • document assumptions such as value, liquidity need, and intended ownership
  • refer legal and tax details for agreement drafting and implementation

The closest distraction is waiting for legal drafting first, but good planning starts with a documented needs analysis and then coordinates the final structure.

  • One policy for all needs fails because a corporate-owned policy with the spouse as beneficiary does not properly fund the shareholder buyout need.
  • Personal need only fails because it ignores the immediate business succession and liquidity risk already identified in the draft agreement.
  • Wait for legal drafting fails because the planner can and should quantify needs now, then coordinate final ownership and wording with specialists.

Personal protection and business-continuation funding serve different objectives, so coverage, ownership, and beneficiary design should be planned separately and coordinated.


Question 7

Topic: Insurance Planning

During an insurance review, Priya and Marc, ages 35 and 38, say their main goal is to protect the family until their two children are financially independent and their 19-year mortgage is paid off. They have no business interests, no planned charitable bequest, no disabled dependant, and no expected estate liquidity issue. Their cash flow is tight because they are paying down debt and funding RESPs. What is the advisor’s best next step?

  • A. Illustrate participating whole life first for lifelong coverage and cash values
  • B. Delay any insurance recommendation until their savings goals are fully funded
  • C. Quantify the temporary need and compare level term insurance options
  • D. Recommend universal life funded above the need for tax-advantaged savings

Best answer: C

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The clients’ stated need ends when the mortgage is gone and the children are independent, so the protection need is temporary. With no estate or business liquidity objective and limited cash flow, the advisor should first determine the amount and duration needed and compare level term coverage.

Term insurance is usually the best starting point when the need is temporary, measurable, and tied to a clear time horizon. In this case, the family wants protection only until two events occur: the children become self-supporting and the mortgage is repaid. The fact find does not show a lifelong need such as estate liquidity funding, support for a lifelong dependant, business succession funding, or a permanent charitable objective.

The appropriate process is to:

  • calculate the amount of income replacement and debt coverage required
  • determine how many years the protection is needed
  • compare level term solutions that fit their cash flow

Permanent insurance may be reviewed later if their goals change, but it is not the first product to illustrate when the need has a defined end date and affordability matters.

  • Whole life first assumes a permanent need that the facts do not support and would likely increase premiums unnecessarily.
  • Delay coverage ignores a current protection gap while dependants and mortgage debt still exist.
  • Universal life savings adds investment features before confirming that a permanent insurance need exists.

Their protection need has a defined end point, so sizing the need and matching it with affordable term coverage is the appropriate next step.


Question 8

Topic: Insurance Planning

During an insurance review, Priya, 41, says she wants disability coverage that would protect her income to age 65 if she cannot work as a pharmacist. She currently has 17 weeks of employer-paid sick leave, a group LTD plan replacing 60% of salary, and a small individual accident policy. Her advisor has not yet confirmed whether the group LTD definition changes after two years, when benefits start, how long they last, or whether benefits are reduced by CPP disability or other coverage. What is the best next step?

  • A. Treat the group plan as adequate because it already replaces 60% of salary.
  • B. Review all current coverage for disability definitions, waiting periods, benefit durations, and offsets.
  • C. Submit an individual disability application first and assess coordination after issue.
  • D. Recommend own-occupation coverage to age 65 with a 30-day waiting period.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The advisor needs the details of Priya’s current disability coverage before deciding whether more insurance is suitable. Definition of disability, elimination period, benefit duration, and coordination rules can materially change whether she has a real gap or already has adequate protection.

Disability insurance suitability is not determined by the replacement percentage alone. The advisor should first review Priya’s sick leave, group LTD, and other coverage to see how disability is defined, when benefits begin, how long they continue, and whether other sources reduce the benefit. In her case, 17 weeks of sick leave may support a longer elimination period, while a group plan that shifts from own occupation to any occupation, or offsets CPP disability, could leave a gap even if it shows 60% income replacement. Benefit duration also matters because her stated goal is protection to age 65. Recommending or applying for new coverage before this comparison risks duplicate insurance, unnecessary premiums, or an uncovered exposure.

  • Premature design specifying own-occupation to age 65 and a 30-day wait skips the review of existing sick leave and group LTD terms.
  • Replacement-rate shortcut relying on 60% alone ignores the disability definition and possible offsets from CPP disability or other plans.
  • Wrong sequence applying first and analyzing later reverses the suitability process and may create unnecessary cost or duplication.

Suitability can only be judged after comparing existing disability definitions, waiting periods, benefit periods, and offsets with her income goal.


Question 9

Topic: Insurance Planning

An employer group long-term disability plan replaces 66% of base salary to a maximum of $5,000 per month and excludes bonuses and commissions. Which client profile MOST clearly indicates a material protection gap if the client relies only on this coverage?

  • A. A manager earning $90,000 salary, no bonus, and strong emergency savings.
  • B. A sales director earning $140,000 salary plus a regular $40,000 bonus and high fixed expenses.
  • C. A teacher earning $72,000 salary, no variable pay, and modest living costs.
  • D. A public servant earning $78,000 salary whose spouse earns similarly and they have no dependants.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The sales director is the clearest gap case because the plan covers only base salary and is capped at $5,000 a month. A high earner with regular bonus income and significant fixed costs can face a substantial shortfall even though group LTD exists.

A material protection gap exists when the client’s actual disability benefit would fall well short of the income needed to support ongoing obligations. In this plan, two limits matter: only base salary is insured, and the monthly benefit cannot exceed $5,000. For the sales director, 66% of $140,000 base salary is about $7,700 per month before the cap, so the cap already reduces the benefit. On top of that, the regular $40,000 bonus is not covered at all. That combination makes the available group coverage much less effective for maintaining the client’s lifestyle and debt payments. Clients with lower salaries, no variable pay, or stronger household support may still review coverage, but they do not show as clear a gap under these facts.

  • The manager’s income is much closer to the plan design, and strong liquid savings reduce the immediate protection concern.
  • The teacher has no bonus or commission income, so the plan’s income definition is less likely to create a major shortfall.
  • The public servant could still assess coverage needs, but similar spousal income and no dependants make the gap less material here.

The monthly cap and exclusion of bonus income leave this higher-income client with a large likely shortfall against ongoing obligations.


Question 10

Topic: Insurance Planning

Which statement about disability insurance policy design is correct?

  • A. An own-occupation definition mainly determines how long benefits continue.
  • B. Benefit duration sets the waiting time before disability payments start.
  • C. Integrated coverage is designed to pay full benefits regardless of other disability coverage.
  • D. A longer elimination period may suit a client with ample sick leave and liquid savings.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Insurance Planning

Explanation: The elimination period is the waiting period before disability benefits begin. A client who can bridge that gap with sick leave or emergency savings may accept a longer waiting period to lower premium cost without creating an immediate income shortfall.

In disability planning, each policy feature affects both coverage quality and suitability. The definition of disability determines when the insured qualifies for benefits; broader definitions, such as own-occupation, generally provide stronger protection. The elimination period is the waiting period before benefits start, so a longer period is often suitable only when the client has enough sick leave, emergency savings, or other short-term support to cover that gap. Benefit duration determines how long benefits continue once they become payable. Integrated coverage coordinates benefits with employer or government disability plans, so the individual insurer may reduce payments rather than stack full amounts on top of other coverage. The key distinction is whether the feature affects claim eligibility, waiting time, payment length, or coordination with other benefits.

  • Own-occupation confusion mixes up claim qualification with payment length; it describes how disability is defined, not how long benefits last.
  • Benefit duration confusion swaps payment length with waiting time; the waiting period is the elimination period.
  • Integration confusion overlooks coordination; integrated coverage typically offsets other disability income rather than paying full duplicate benefits.

A longer elimination period reduces premium and can fit a client who can fund the waiting period from savings or short-term income support.

Continue with full practice

Use the FP II Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Open the matching Securities Prep practice page for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Free review resource

Read the FP II guide on SecuritiesMastery.com, then return to Securities Prep for timed practice.

Revised on Wednesday, May 13, 2026