Life insurance claims involving alcohol are some of the most aggressively denied. When a fatal accident includes alcohol, insurers often assume they have an easy out. They lean on intoxication exclusions, illegal act clauses, or self-inflicted injury language to avoid paying benefits, even when the policy was otherwise valid.
But alcohol in the system does not automatically void coverage. Whether a denial holds up depends on disclosure, policy wording, and whether alcohol actually caused the death.
How Alcohol Becomes an Issue After Death
Alcohol related denials usually arise in one of two ways.
First, the insurer looks back at the original application. If the insured understated alcohol use, failed to disclose prior DUIs, or omitted treatment history, the company may argue material misrepresentation. If the death occurs within the contestability period, this can be used to rescind the policy entirely.
Second, insurers rely on exclusions tied to the manner of death. These often include illegal acts, intoxication, or self-inflicted harm. Drunk driving cases fall squarely into this category, which is why they are so frequently denied.
Why Insurers Treat Drunk Driving as Self-Inflicted Harm
Many policies exclude deaths caused by intentional or self-inflicted injury. Insurers argue that driving while intoxicated is a knowingly dangerous act and therefore self-caused. Even without any suicidal intent, they claim the risk was foreseeable and voluntary.
This interpretation is not always correct. Courts often require more than reckless behavior. They look at whether the policy clearly defines intoxication as excluded conduct and whether the death was directly caused by the illegal act.
Illegal Act Exclusions and BAC Levels
Most states define legal intoxication at a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent. If toxicology reports show the insured exceeded that level, insurers frequently deny claims under illegal act exclusions.
What they do not emphasize is that the exclusion must actually apply under the policy language. Some policies require the illegal act to be the direct or sole cause of death. Others are silent on alcohol entirely.
If alcohol was present but not the cause of the crash, the denial may be vulnerable.
When Alcohol Was Present but Not the Cause
This is where many alcohol related denials fall apart. Insurers often assume causation based solely on toxicology results. That assumption is not always supported by the facts.
Claims may still be valid when:
• the BAC was below the legal limit
• another driver caused the accident
• mechanical failure or road conditions played a role
• alcohol did not impair the insured’s actions
Courts increasingly reject blanket denials that rely only on the presence of alcohol rather than proof of causation.
Misrepresentation Versus Cause of Death
Insurers often blend two arguments together. They claim the insured lied about alcohol use and that alcohol caused the death. These are separate issues.
Even if alcohol contributed to the accident, the insurer still must prove that the insured knowingly misrepresented material facts on the application. Honest mistakes, vague questions, or outdated history often do not meet that standard.
A Real World Reversal
In a recent case involving Unum, a life insurance claim was denied based on alleged intoxication after a fatal crash. The insurer relied on self-inflicted injury and illegal act language.
After reviewing police reports, toxicology data, and the accident reconstruction, it became clear that alcohol was not the determining cause of death. Faced with that evidence and the risk of litigation, Unum reversed the denial and paid the full $1.3 million benefit.
Why These Denials Are Often Beatable
Alcohol related denials succeed only when insurers can clearly connect intoxication to the death and show the policy excludes coverage under those exact circumstances. Many denials rely on assumptions rather than proof.
An experienced life insurance attorney looks at:
• whether the exclusion is clearly written
• whether alcohol actually caused the death
• whether the insurer overstated toxicology findings
• whether application disclosures were truly misleading
When those elements do not line up, insurers often back down.