Life insurance companies are for profit businesses. One of the main ways they increase profits is by denying claims, especially large ones.
During the first two years of a life insurance policy, known as the contestability period, insurers are allowed to investigate the insured’s application and background. If they find something they can label a “material misrepresentation,” they may try to rescind the policy and refuse to pay.
The problem is not that investigations exist. The problem is how aggressively and unfairly insurers use them.
We often see companies stretch the meaning of “misrepresentation” beyond anything reasonable. Sometimes they even invent problems that did not exist when the policy was issued.
That is exactly what happened in this case.
A Real Case: When Dog Breeding Was Labeled “Inherently Dangerous”
Matt and Toni were business partners and spouses who made their living breeding rare and valuable dogs, specifically white rhino pit bulls.
Despite the reputation some people attach to the breed, Matt and Toni focused on raising calm, well trained, non aggressive dogs that were sold to clients across the country.
Because Matt was the key person in the business, he took out a $2 million life insurance policy to protect Toni if something happened to him.
When he applied, he completed the insurer’s standard questionnaire. One question asked whether he regularly engaged in any “inherently dangerous activities.” The application listed examples such as scuba diving, skydiving, and motorcycle racing.
Matt answered “No.”
That answer was truthful.
Ten months later, Matt died suddenly from a heart attack.
Toni submitted the claim.
The Post Death Investigation and the Denial
Because the death occurred within the contestability period, the insurance company opened a full investigation.
They demanded:
Business records
Social media accounts
Financial documents
Background information
Toni cooperated fully.
Two months later, she received a denial letter.
The insurance company claimed that breeding pit bulls was an “inherently dangerous activity” and that Matt had failed to disclose it. They argued that if they had known about his business, they would never have issued the policy.
According to the insurer, Matt’s truthful answer was now being reclassified as a lie.
Why the Denial Made No Legal Sense
The application did not list dog breeding as a dangerous activity.
It did not even hint at it.
The examples given were extreme sports and high risk activities, not normal occupations.
Matt did not lie. He did not hide anything. He answered the question exactly as it was asked.
The insurance company was simply inventing a new definition of “dangerous” after he died.
How We Forced the Insurer to Pay
Toni contacted our firm and we immediately recognized this as a wrongful denial.
We prepared a detailed appeal and gathered:
National statistics showing that deaths from dog related activities are extremely rare
Evidence showing that Matt’s dogs were well trained and non aggressive
Statements from clients and colleagues describing the business and the animals
Legal precedent showing that insurers cannot retroactively redefine application questions
We demanded a hearing before the insurer’s internal appeals board.
At the hearing, the insurance company could not prove:
That dog breeding is an inherently dangerous activity
That Matt’s answer was false
Or that any misrepresentation occurred at all
They had no real case.
The denial was reversed, and Toni was paid the full $2 million benefit.
What This Case Reveals About Post Mortem Investigations
During the contestability period, insurers often treat every death as an opportunity to go on a fishing expedition.
They review every aspect of the insured’s life, not just to look for real fraud, but to see if they can invent a reason not to pay.
If they think the family will not fight back, they sometimes deny first and see what happens.
The Contestability Period Is Not a License to Make Things Up
Insurance companies are allowed to investigate.
They are not allowed to:
Rewrite application questions
Redefine ordinary activities as “dangerous” after the fact
Pretend truthful answers were lies
Or deny claims based on theories they cannot prove
When You Should Get Legal Help
You should talk to a lawyer if:
The insurer is conducting a long or aggressive post death investigation
The claim was denied based on “misrepresentation” that makes no sense
The insurer is reinterpreting normal activities as risky or dangerous
The denial feels manufactured or opportunistic
Do Not Let Them Use the Contestability Period Against You
Our firm focuses exclusively on denied life insurance claims.
We see how often insurers abuse post mortem investigations to avoid paying large policies.
We offer free consultations and handle these cases on a contingency basis. You do not pay anything unless we recover money for you.
If your claim was denied after a post death investigation and the reason feels strange, exaggerated, or unfair, contact us. There is a very real chance the insurance company is wrong.