Our legal team recently recovered the full fifty thousand dollar death benefit after Globe Life denied a life insurance claim based on an alleged eligibility requirement that was never disclosed to the policyholder. Globe Life asserted that the policy should never have been issued because the insured failed to meet an internal underwriting standard. That standard, however, was not stated anywhere in the policy, not disclosed during the application process, and not tied to any question the insured was asked to answer.
After a detailed legal review, we challenged Globe Life’s position and forced a reversal. The beneficiary received the full fifty thousand dollars, plus interest. This case illustrates a recurring tactic used by insurers: denying valid claims by relying on unwritten or internal rules that were never part of the insurance contract.
How Insurers Use Undisclosed Eligibility Rules After Death
Life insurance policies are contracts. The insurer drafts the terms, controls the application process, and decides what information to request before issuing coverage. If the insurer fails to ask a question, require an exam, or include a condition in the policy, it generally cannot enforce that requirement later.
Despite this, insurers frequently attempt what amounts to post-claim underwriting. After the insured dies, the company reexamines the file and applies internal eligibility rules that were never disclosed. They then argue the policy was issued in error and should be rescinded retroactively.
That is exactly what happened in the Globe Life case.
The insured purchased a simplified issue policy. No medical exam was required. The application contained limited health questions, all of which were answered accurately. After the death, Globe Life cited an internal “health qualification” guideline and claimed the insured never should have qualified for coverage. That guideline was not in the policy and was never communicated to the insured.
Why Hidden Rules Are Not Enforceable
Contract law is clear on this point. An insurer cannot deny a claim based on standards that were not part of the written agreement. Courts consistently hold that internal manuals, underwriting guides, and unpublished criteria do not override the policy itself.
In this case, Globe Life could not point to any policy provision that supported the denial. The company relied entirely on internal underwriting logic that existed outside the four corners of the contract. That approach fails for several reasons:
• The policyholder had no notice of the alleged requirement
• The insurer chose to issue the policy without further investigation
• Premiums were accepted in full and on time
• The policy contained no exclusion or condition supporting rescission
Once we laid out these facts, Globe Life’s position became untenable.
Waiver Through Issuance and Acceptance of Premiums
Another critical issue was waiver. When an insurer issues a policy despite having the ability to investigate further, it often waives the right to later deny coverage based on facts it could have discovered earlier.
In the Globe Life case, the insurer could have required additional health questions, medical records, or an exam. It did not. Instead, it issued the policy, accepted premiums, and waited until after the insured’s death to raise the issue.
Courts routinely reject that strategy. An insurer cannot remain silent at underwriting, take the premiums, and then retroactively impose conditions after a claim is filed.
Other Examples of Hidden Rule Denials We Have Reversed
This Globe Life recovery fits a broader pattern we see across the industry. Insurers frequently attempt to deny claims based on undisclosed standards such as:
• Alleged health thresholds never mentioned in the policy
• Waiting periods not actually written into the contract
• Updated underwriting guidelines applied retroactively
• Vague “acceptable health” language with no definition
• Internal risk scores never disclosed to applicants
In each of these scenarios, the insurer relies on the assumption that the beneficiary will not challenge the denial. When challenged, these denials often collapse.
Why Simplified Issue Policies Are Frequent Targets
Simplified issue and guaranteed issue policies are especially vulnerable to this tactic. Because these policies involve fewer questions and no medical exam, insurers later try to fill in the gaps with internal assumptions.
But simplified underwriting is the insurer’s choice. If the company elects to limit its questions and issue coverage quickly, it bears the risk of that decision. It cannot later punish the beneficiary for the insurer’s own underwriting shortcuts.
That principle was central to the Globe Life case and was key to forcing payment.
Why Beneficiaries Should Not Accept These Denials at Face Value
Denial letters citing “eligibility issues” or “policy should not have been issued” often sound authoritative. In reality, they are frequently based on weak legal footing. Insurers use technical language to discourage challenges, especially when the dollar amount is relatively modest.
This fifty thousand dollar case proves that even smaller policies are worth fighting. The legal principles are the same, and insurers are just as accountable.
Legal Pressure Changes the Outcome
Globe Life did not reverse its decision because of additional documents or explanations from the beneficiary. It reversed because the legal basis for the denial did not exist.
When insurers are forced to defend their decision under contract law, waiver doctrine, and good faith obligations, many choose to pay rather than litigate an indefensible position.
If a life insurance claim has been denied based on vague eligibility concerns, internal rules, or standards you were never told about, that denial deserves careful review. In many cases, the policyholder did nothing wrong, and the insurer is simply trying to rewrite the contract after the fact.