Your Life Insurance Claim Was Denied Because of Something on the Application
An insurer told you the person you lost misrepresented something when they applied for coverage, and used that to deny or take back the benefit. That claim is often wrong, and it fails for more than one reason. This page walks through why, including a case we are litigating right now on exactly this issue.
Talk to Dorian LawWhy Insurers Deny Claims for “Misrepresentation,” and Why the Denial Often Doesn’t Hold Up
Nearly every group life policy allows the insurer to challenge coverage within a contestable period, usually the first two years, if the application contained a misrepresentation. When someone dies within that window, insurers frequently open a "contestable claim investigation," comb the medical records for anything that doesn't perfectly match the application, and deny the claim on that basis. It is one of the most common reasons a life insurance claim gets denied. It is also one of the most frequently overturned, because the insurer has to clear several distinct legal hurdles to make that denial stick, and it often clears none of them.
There Was No Actual Misrepresentation
An insurer cannot rely on a failure to disclose something the application never actually asked about. Group life applications are often dense, compound, multi-part questions covering a dozen unrelated conditions in a single run-on sentence. Courts have declined to let insurers rescind coverage over a fact the applicant was never clearly asked to disclose in the first place. See Seamons v. Deseret Mut. Benefit Adm'rs, No. 2:14-cv-00499-DN (D. Utah Jan. 9, 2017) (declining to permit rescission where the application did not reasonably call for the information at issue).
The Information Wasn’t Material to Underwriting
Even a genuine inaccuracy does not automatically justify a denial. Under the Ninth Circuit's ERISA common law, materiality turns on whether accurate information would actually have changed the insurer's underwriting decision, not on whether the application was answered perfectly. Security Life Ins. Co. of America v. Meyling, 146 F.3d 1184, 1192 (9th Cir. 1998). California law applies the same test: "materiality is determined solely by the probable and reasonable effect which truthful answers would have had upon the insurer." Thompson v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 9 Cal. 3d 904, 916 (1973). The insurer carries the burden of showing the true facts would have changed the underwriting outcome. Unionamerica Ins. Co. v. Fort Miller Group, Inc., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1262 (N.D. Cal. 2008). When an insurer's own underwriting file shows it reviewed the full medical picture and reached the same conclusion anyway, that is direct evidence against materiality.
The Contestability Window Had Already Closed
Most group life policies, and California law specifically, bar an insurer from contesting coverage at all once it has been in force for two years during the insured's lifetime, regardless of what the insurer later claims to have discovered. Cal. Ins. Code §§ 10113.5, 10113.71–72. The California Supreme Court has enforced this deadline strictly. McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 12 Cal. 5th 213, 494 P.3d 24 (2021). An insurer that waited too long, or that miscounts the relevant date, may lose its right to contest the claim at all, independent of anything the application said.
The Insurer Never Furnished the Application Before Using It
Many group life policies contain a separate, often-overlooked condition: before an insurer can use anything in an application to contest a claim, it must first have furnished a copy of that application to the insured, or to the beneficiary if the insured has already died. If the first time anyone saw the completed application was attached to the denial letter itself, the insurer may never have been entitled to use it at all, regardless of what it said or how it was answered. This is the issue at the center of a case we filed in federal court, described below.
"The policy shall contain a provision that a copy of the application, if any, of the policyholder shall be attached to the policy when issued, that all statements made by the policyholder or by the persons insured shall be deemed representations and not warranties, and that no statement made by any person insured shall be used in any contest unless a copy of the instrument containing the statement is or has been furnished to the person or, in the event of death or incapacity of the insured person, to his or her beneficiary or personal representative."
NAIC Group Life Insurance Standard Provisions Model Act, § 5(C) (Model #565)This is not language one carrier invented. It comes from a model act drafted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and adopted, in substantially this form, by a majority of states. It is why the same furnishment condition tends to show up in group life policies from very different carriers: the requirement was written once, at the model-law level, and carried into state insurance codes and policy forms nationwide.
We Are Litigating a Furnishment Failure Right Now
Our client's late partner applied for supplemental and dependent life insurance through his employer's group plan. The insurer approved the coverage, he passed away within the contestable period, and what happened next traces the fourth ground above.
The complaint alleges that under the policy's own incontestability provision, no statement made in an application may be used to contest coverage unless a copy "is or has been furnished to the Insured or any Insured Dependent, the Insured's or any Insured Dependent's beneficiary or legal representative." Because the first furnishment allegedly occurred 107 days after death, attached to the denial letter itself, the complaint argues the insurer was never entitled to use the application at all.
The Furnishment Rule Is Not a One-State Theory
Courts in multiple states, interpreting language drawn from this same model act, have reached the same conclusion for roughly sixty years: an insurer cannot satisfy a furnishment condition by handing the application to a grieving beneficiary after the insured has already died. Filter the table below by how each case treated the rule.
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Layman v. Continental Assurance Co. (Layman II), 430 Pa. 134 | Pennsylvania | 1968 | Adopted the New York rule from Robins; furnishment "obviously cannot" happen after the insured has died, so post-death delivery does not satisfy the clause. |
| Robins v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 268 N.Y.S.2d 470, reinstated 26 N.Y.2d 699 | New York | 1966 / 1970 | First court to hold that furnishment must occur during the insured's lifetime, reasoning that "compliance after death is late" because the point is to allow correction of errors. |
| Metzinger v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 71 Cal. 2d 423 | California | 1969 | Furnishing the application to beneficiaries only after death did not satisfy a materially identical furnishment promise; the purpose is to let the insured correct errors while alive. |
| Schafer v. Valley Forge Life Ins. Co., 23 Ill. App. 3d 47 | Illinois | 1974 | Held the clause "may not be complied with by furnishing a copy after insured's death as it is then too late" to serve its purpose. |
| Johnson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 519 S.W.2d 111 | Texas | 1975 | Rejected the insurer's reading that furnishment "at any time" was sufficient; the insured must be furnished a copy while living, or the beneficiary promptly if death intervenes first. |
| Manz v. Continental American Life Ins. Co., 119 Or. App. 31 (applying Washington law) | Oregon / Washington | 1993 | Followed Johnson; because the insurer never provided a copy of the application with the certificate, it could not rely on that application to deny coverage. |
| Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 | Texas | 1994 | Reaffirmed that representations in an application not furnished cannot serve as the basis for a misrepresentation defense. |
| D'Allessandro v. Durham Life Ins. Co., 503 Pa. 33 (applying Missouri law) | Pennsylvania court / Missouri law | 1983 | Distinguished Furnishment had already occurred before death; the live dispute was which of several possible claimants had to receive it, not whether pre-death furnishment was required at all. |
| Huang v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 801 F.3d 892 (8th Cir.) | 8th Circuit / Missouri | 2015 | Contrary (Narrow) Often cited by insurers, but the clause at issue concerned a continuing duty to report health changes before a policy took effect, not the furnish-before-contest clause at issue here, and the policy's own two-sentence structure conditioned pre-death furnishment on the insured being alive to receive it. |
Common Questions
Was Your Claim Denied Over an Alleged Misrepresentation?
If an insurer denied a life insurance claim because of something on the application, the denial may not hold up. We can review the claim file and tell you where it's vulnerable.
Get a Case Review