Many life insurance beneficiaries are blindsided when a claim is denied even though the cause of death appears straightforward. A car accident, a fall, or a medical emergency should be covered. Yet insurers often rely on a technical provision buried in the policy called the contestability clause to reopen the application and search for any excuse not to pay.
This tactic is especially common when insurers discover that the policyholder participated in an activity like scuba diving, skydiving, or another adventure sport at some point after the policy was issued. Even when the activity had nothing to do with the death, insurers may attempt to reframe it as a misrepresentation and deny the claim entirely.
Understanding how this happens is critical, because many of these denials are legally weak and frequently reversible.
What the contestability period really allows insurers to do
Most life insurance policies include a two year contestability period starting on the policy issue date. If the insured dies during that window, the insurer is permitted to review the original application for inaccuracies or omissions. If the insurer believes a misstatement was material, it may attempt to rescind the policy and deny the death benefit.
Material means something that would have affected underwriting decisions, such as whether to issue the policy, the premium charged, or the amount of coverage approved.
What insurers rarely explain is that the burden is on them to prove that a misrepresentation actually occurred. They must also show that the question was clear, that the answer was false at the time it was given, and that the issue was truly significant to underwriting.
Instead, many insurers treat the contestability period as a license to retroactively reinterpret answers, often using hindsight and social media to do it.
Justin’s policy and a question that mattered later
Justin was a senior technology executive who accepted a leadership role at a fast growing startup in his late fifties. As part of his compensation package, the company offered a $2.5 million group life insurance policy. Like many executives, Justin viewed the coverage as a safety net for his family and completed the enrollment paperwork promptly.
The application included a lifestyle question asking whether the applicant regularly engaged in certain high risk activities. The list included scuba diving, skydiving, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, motorcycle racing, and cliff diving.
Justin answered no. At the time, that answer was completely accurate. He had never tried scuba diving or any similar activity.
The policy was issued without issue.
A vacation choice that later became a problem
About six months later, Justin and his wife Cynthia took a long planned vacation to the Cayman Islands. While there, they decided to try scuba diving through a licensed instructor as a recreational experience. Justin enjoyed it. Over the following year, the couple went diving on two additional trips.
Scuba diving became something Justin did occasionally on vacation. It was not a hobby. It was not a routine activity. It was not something he did before the policy was issued.
Eighteen months after the policy became effective, Justin was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving home from a work event. There was no allegation of impairment, recklessness, or medical emergency. The death certificate listed blunt force trauma from the crash.
A claim delay turns into a denial
Cynthia filed the life insurance claim shortly after Justin’s death. The insurer acknowledged receipt and advised her that the claim would be reviewed because the death occurred within the contestability period.
Several weeks passed with no communication. Then Cynthia received a denial letter.
The insurer claimed Justin had misrepresented his participation in hazardous activities. The letter cited photographs found on social media showing Justin scuba diving during vacations. According to the insurer, this meant Justin had falsely denied engaging in scuba diving on his application. On that basis, the insurer voided the policy and denied the entire $2.5 million benefit.
The denial made no claim that scuba diving caused Justin’s death. It relied solely on the alleged misrepresentation.
Why the insurer’s reasoning was flawed
Cynthia contacted a law firm that focuses exclusively on denied life insurance claims. The attorney reviewing the file immediately identified several fatal problems with the insurer’s position.
First, the application did not ask whether Justin had ever tried scuba diving. It asked whether he regularly engaged in it. At the time of the application, Justin had never done it at all.
Second, even after the policy was issued, Justin’s participation was sporadic and recreational. Three dives over more than a year does not meet any reasonable definition of regular participation.
Third, there was no connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the cause of death. While not required legally, the absence of any nexus further weakened the insurer’s position.
Finally, the insurer relied on post application conduct to reinterpret a past answer, which courts routinely reject.
The appeal that forced a reversal
The attorney filed a formal appeal supported by documentation and sworn statements. These included affidavits from Cynthia and friends confirming Justin had never scuba dived before the policy was issued, medical records showing no restrictions or underwriting relevance, and a written explanation demonstrating that occasional vacation activity is not regular engagement.
The appeal also highlighted a critical point. If insurers were allowed to deny claims whenever someone tried a new activity after buying life insurance, virtually every policy would be at risk. That is not how life insurance contracts are intended to work.
The insurer’s internal review board ultimately agreed. The denial was reversed. Cynthia received the full $2.5 million death benefit along with interest for the delay.
Why these denials keep happening
Insurers frequently use the contestability period to search for leverage. Social media photos, travel records, and medical notes are mined for anything that can be reframed as a misstatement. Vague questions on applications are interpreted aggressively, always in the insurer’s favor.
Many beneficiaries accept these denials without challenge because the language sounds authoritative and final. In reality, many are legally unsound.
What beneficiaries should remember
A denial during the contestability period does not mean the insurer is right. It means the insurer is testing whether you will fight back.
Misrepresentation requires more than an after the fact disagreement. The question must be clear. The answer must be false when given. The issue must be material. If any part of that chain breaks, the denial can fail.
When to seek legal help
You should speak with a life insurance attorney if a denial involves:
• Alleged failure to disclose hobbies or activities
• Claims based on social media or vacation photos
• Vague application questions
• Deaths unrelated to the alleged misstatement
• Contestability period investigations
These cases are highly fact driven and often winnable.
Final takeaway
Trying scuba diving once or twice does not void a life insurance policy. Neither does skydiving on a vacation after a policy is issued. Insurers know this. They also know many beneficiaries will not challenge a denial.
That is why experienced legal review matters. With the right approach, these denials can often be overturned and the intended benefit recovered.