Life insurance companies don’t love world travelers as much as you’d think. In fact, many modern policies include strict foreign travel exclusions designed to avoid paying claims when policyholders venture into risky areas. One of the most controversial exclusions involves countries listed on the U.S. Department of State’s travel advisory list. And when an insurer decides to deny a claim based on one of those advisories, grieving families are often left stunned—and financially unprotected. This article explores a compelling case where one insurer misused a travel exclusion to try to escape liability. If you need a Nevada life insurance denial attorney call us.
A Policyholder’s Passion for Exploration
Ken was the textbook definition of an adventurer. In his early 50s and financially successful, he spent years traveling the globe, embracing every opportunity to experience new cultures and places. He also made sure his wife Lauren was protected. He held a $1,000,000 life insurance policy with her listed as the sole beneficiary.
Because Ken disclosed his love of global travel in his application, the insurer issued the policy with a foreign travel exclusion. According to that clause, the company wouldn’t have to pay a claim if Ken “knowingly traveled to any country for which the United States Department of State had issued a Level 2 or higher travel advisory.”
Ken, a seasoned traveler, took that language seriously. Before booking his trips, he always reviewed the Department of State’s advisory website. When he planned a January 2012 trip to Honduras in April of the prior year, the country had only a Level 1 advisory in place—“exercise normal precautions.” That remained the case until he left.
A Sudden Change and a Devastating Loss
Once Ken arrived in Honduras, the trip went smoothly—until everything changed. Just two weeks into his stay, the State Department updated its travel advisory to Level 3, urging U.S. citizens to “reconsider travel” due to growing unrest in the capital. Ken, who was staying in a remote village hours away and scheduled to return home in a few days, decided to stay put.
Tragically, just two days before his return flight, Ken boarded a local bus that was targeted in a rebel bombing. He was killed instantly. When Lauren submitted a claim for benefits under the life insurance policy, she fully expected it to be honored.
A Denial Based on Fine Print
Weeks later, Lauren received a claim denial letter. The insurance company argued that because Ken had been in a country with a Level 3 travel advisory at the time of his death, the foreign travel exclusion barred payout. The company ignored the key part of the clause—the word “knowingly.”
Lauren was shocked. Ken had been cautious, deliberate, and well-informed. She knew he never would have intentionally traveled to a high-risk destination. So she contacted an attorney who specializes in contesting life insurance claim denials.
Legal Strategy: Challenging the "Knowingly" Clause
The attorney quickly saw a path forward:
He reviewed the exclusion’s exact wording, which required that Ken “knowingly” travel to a country with a Level 2 or higher advisory.
He contacted the U.S. Department of State and obtained official records confirming that Honduras had only a Level 1 advisory until just one week before Ken’s death.
He emphasized that Ken had booked the trip nine months earlier and had already been in the country for weeks before the advisory changed.
Armed with this timeline, the attorney appealed the denial before the insurer’s internal review board.
A Just Resolution After Pressure
Initially, the insurer dug in its heels. It suggested paying only a partial benefit. But after a full-day hearing, the appeals board ruled that Ken had not violated the exclusion clause. He did not “knowingly” travel to a high-risk area—the threat level had changed after he was already there.
Ultimately, Lauren received the full $1,000,000 policy payout her husband had intended for her.
What This Case Teaches Beneficiaries
Life insurance companies often try to use foreign travel exclusions to their advantage. But exclusions must be enforced exactly as written. This case underscores a few important lessons:
Policy language matters: Even a single word like “knowingly” can make or break a claim.
Advisory timing is critical: The risk level at the time of travel—not at the time of death—can be the deciding factor.
Legal help makes a difference: Without an attorney, it’s unlikely Lauren would’ve won this fight.
If your loved one’s life insurance claim has been denied due to travel restrictions or any other reason, don’t assume the denial is final. Many of these exclusions are wrongly applied or misunderstood—even by the insurers themselves.
We can help. Our law firm focuses solely on challenging the wrongful denial of life insurance claims. We’ve successfully helped hundreds of families recover the payouts their loved ones intended. Contact us today for a free consultation. We’ll review your claim, explain your legal options, and only charge a fee if we win.