Life insurance companies are allowed to deny claims in very limited circumstances involving homicide. But what many beneficiaries do not realize is how narrow those circumstances actually are. A denial based on murder is only legally valid when there is clear, substantial evidence that the beneficiary intentionally caused the insured’s death. Suspicion alone is not enough. An open investigation is not enough. Being questioned by police is not enough.
Despite this, life insurance companies routinely delay or deny claims by hiding behind unresolved criminal investigations. They do so knowing that grieving beneficiaries are often too overwhelmed to challenge the decision. These denials are not driven by law. They are driven by risk avoidance and leverage.
As attorneys who focus exclusively on denied life insurance claims, we have seen this tactic used repeatedly. Insurers take advantage of the uncertainty surrounding a homicide investigation and treat it as permission to freeze benefits indefinitely. In many cases, that position collapses the moment legal pressure is applied.
Why insurers cite murder when denying claims
Life insurance companies rely on a legal doctrine commonly referred to as the slayer rule. The rule exists for a legitimate reason. A person should not be allowed to profit from a death they intentionally caused. Every state recognizes some version of this principle, either by statute or case law.
However, the slayer rule is far more limited than insurers often suggest. In most jurisdictions, it requires one of two things:
• A criminal conviction for homicide
• Clear and convincing evidence establishing responsibility for the death
Absent one of those, the beneficiary is presumed innocent. Life insurers are not courts. They do not get to substitute suspicion for proof.
The problem arises when insurers treat unresolved investigations as justification to deny claims outright or place them into indefinite limbo. This is especially common when the beneficiary is a spouse, partner, or family member, even when law enforcement has publicly or privately cleared that person.
The murder of Brad and the denial based on implication
Brad was a successful business owner and father of two. He maintained a sizable life insurance policy and named his wife Kathy as the sole beneficiary. One evening, Brad was shot and killed in his home. The circumstances were unquestionably criminal.
Kathy was not present at the time of the murder. She was traveling for work in another city, staying at a hotel with a colleague. Phone records, hotel logs, and witness testimony confirmed she never left the premises that night.
As with any homicide, police initially examined those closest to Brad. Kathy cooperated fully. Her devices were searched, her communications reviewed, and her movements verified. Within weeks, investigators documented that she was no longer a suspect and that there was no evidence linking her to the crime.
The criminal investigation continued, but not with Kathy as a focus.
A denial that ignored the facts
After Brad’s death, Kathy filed a life insurance claim. She provided everything requested, including the death certificate, police documentation, and public records related to the investigation. She reasonably expected the claim to move forward.
Instead, the insurance company issued a denial letter. The stated reason was that the homicide remained unsolved and that Kathy could not be conclusively excluded as a suspect. The company refused to process payment until someone else was arrested and convicted.
This position had no legal foundation. The insurer was not relying on evidence. It was relying on the absence of closure.
In effect, the company was accusing Kathy of murder without saying so directly. The emotional impact was severe. Not only was she grieving her husband, she was being treated as if she were responsible for his death despite being cleared by law enforcement.
Why this type of denial is legally flawed
Life insurance companies are permitted to delay payment briefly during an active homicide investigation. That is not the same thing as issuing a denial. Courts draw a clear distinction between reasonable investigation and indefinite withholding.
Once law enforcement determines that a beneficiary is not a suspect, the insurer loses its justification for nonpayment. The burden does not shift to the beneficiary to prove innocence. The burden remains on the insurer to prove wrongdoing.
Insurance companies that continue to deny or delay under these circumstances risk violating bad faith statutes and unfair claims practices laws. Courts routinely reject the idea that unresolved cases justify permanent denial.
How legal pressure changed the outcome
Kathy contacted our firm after receiving the denial. We reviewed the investigative materials and immediately recognized that the insurer had overreached. This was not a case involving competing beneficiaries or conflicting evidence. This was a case of an insurer refusing to act without a conviction it had no right to demand.
Our legal team obtained sworn statements from the lead homicide investigator confirming that Kathy was no longer considered a suspect. We also documented the timeline of the investigation and the insurer’s refusal to engage with law enforcement findings.
At the insurer’s internal appeal hearing, we presented:
• Formal confirmation that Kathy had been cleared
• Verified alibi documentation
• Evidence of a stable marriage with no motive
• Case law showing that suspicion alone is insufficient
The insurer reversed its denial shortly thereafter and issued full payment of the policy proceeds.
Why insurers rely on this tactic
Life insurance companies use murder related denials because they are intimidating. Few beneficiaries feel equipped to challenge an insurer while a homicide remains unresolved. Companies know this. They also know that every month they delay payment is a month they retain the funds.
In many cases, insurers hope the beneficiary will give up or accept a reduced settlement simply to move forward. That strategy only works when the beneficiary does not have experienced legal representation.
What beneficiaries should understand
A life insurance company cannot:
• Deny a claim based solely on suspicion
• Require a conviction when none exists
• Treat an open investigation as proof of guilt
• Delay payment indefinitely without evidence
If you are a named beneficiary and have been cleared by law enforcement, the insurer’s role is not to second guess that determination.
Do not assume a murder related denial is final
Denials involving homicide are among the most emotionally devastating and legally complex. They are also among the most frequently abused. When insurers step beyond the slayer rule and into speculation, courts often side with beneficiaries.
If your life insurance claim has been denied or stalled because of an alleged murder investigation, do not wait for the insurer to change its mind. These cases rarely resolve on their own. Legal intervention is often the only way to force action.
Our firm focuses exclusively on life insurance claim denials, including those involving homicide allegations and slayer rule disputes. We understand how these denials are supposed to work and how insurers misuse them. If you are facing this situation, a timely legal review can make the difference between years of delay and a full recovery of benefits your loved one intended for you.