An applicant's heart condition began six months ago, but neither the applicant nor the insurer was aware of it when the disability policy was issued. The condition is later diagnosed. Under California Insurance Code Section 250, the event giving rise to the claim:

Why A is correct

Section 250 expressly allows insurance against 'any contingent or unknown event, whether past or future.' Because the condition and its onset were unknown to both parties when the contract was made, the occurrence qualifies as an unknown event that may be insured against. This does not mean every claim will be paid: the policy's standard preexisting-condition provisions under Section 10350.2 govern whether and how such a claim is actually handled.

Why the other options are wrong

• B) Section 250 explicitly covers past events when they are unknown; a past onset alone does not defeat insurability.
• C) The test is whether the event was unknown to the parties, not a hindsight judgment about what the applicant could have discovered.
• D) Section 250 does not prohibit preexisting condition provisions; Section 10350.2 regulates how preexisting conditions are treated.

Memory hook

Past + unknown = still insurable. Knowledge, not timing, is what kills coverage.