Upon signing up for a 1 year insurance policy, I was told the policy is effective immediately but I have 14 days to pay. I asked if I could terminate the policy at any time and in particular if I could do so in the first 14 days. The answer was no – that I was locked in for a full year from the very moment of signing with no 14 day cooling off period.

I accepted. But for clarity and knowing my rights I had a look at the law of 04.04.2014, which seems to contradict what the insurer told me.

IIUC, there is a 14-day termination allowance:

(fr) Le preneur d’assurance et l’assureur disposent d’un délai de quatorze jours pour résilier le contrat d’assurance, sans pénalité et sans obligation de motivation. Toutefois, pour les contrats d’assurance sur la vie, ce délai est porté à trente jours.

(en machine translation) The insurance taker and insurer have a period of fourteen days to terminate the insurance contract, without penalty and without any obligation of motivation. However, for life insurance contracts, this period is extended to 30 days.

And regardless of the time of termination (beyond 14 days), it seems consumers are entitled to pro rata refund on the unused portion:

(fr) Art.73) Lorsque le contrat est résilié pour quelque cause que ce soit, les primes payées afférentes à la période d’assurance postérieure à la date de prise d’effet de la résiliation sont remboursées dans un délai de trente jours à compter de la prise d’effet de la résiliation ou, en cas d’application de l’article 57, § 3, à compter de la réception par l’assureur de la notification de la résiliation.

(en machine translation) (Art.73) Where the contract is terminated for any cause, the premiums paid for the period of insurance after the effective date of termination shall be refunded within thirty days from the date of termination or, in the case of application of section 57, § 3, from the date of receipt by the insurer of the termination.

Am I misreading? It seems like this is very basic information that would commonly arise, so it’s a bit unexpected that an insurer would get it wrong. Or is this a case where the contract can supercede the law? I did not read the contract yet (was in a hurry).