Our firm recently recovered the full seventy five thousand dollar death benefit after Protective Life denied a life insurance claim based on an alleged misstatement in the insured’s application. The insurer claimed that a minor inconsistency involving how a past medical treatment was recorded rendered the policy void. The beneficiary was told the misstatement was “material” and that no benefits would be paid.
After a detailed legal and factual investigation, we proved that the alleged error was immaterial, unrelated to the cause of death, and traceable to how the insurance agent entered information into the application. Once confronted with underwriting records, medical documentation, and controlling legal standards, Protective Life reversed its position and paid the full seventy five thousand dollars.
This case illustrates how frequently insurers misuse the contestability clause to deny otherwise valid claims.
How Minor Application Errors Become Grounds for Denial
Life insurance applications are far more complex than most applicants realize. They often include vague medical questions, undefined time frames, and broad categories that are easy to misunderstand. Applicants rely heavily on agents to accurately translate their answers into written form.
In this Protective Life case, the insured disclosed a prior medical issue verbally to the agent. The agent summarized the information incorrectly, creating the appearance that treatment had not occurred. That discrepancy became the sole basis for denial after the insured passed away.
Insurers routinely argue that any incorrect answer during the contestability period automatically justifies rescission. That is not the law. To deny a claim, the insurer must show that the misstatement was material and that it would have changed the underwriting decision.
Protective Life could not meet that burden here.
The Contestability Period Is Not a Free Pass to Deny Claims
Most life insurance policies allow insurers to investigate applications during the first two years after issuance. This contestability period is designed to prevent intentional deception, not to punish innocent mistakes or clerical errors.
In practice, insurers use the contestability period to re-underwrite the policy after death. They comb through medical records, pharmacy databases, and application forms looking for inconsistencies, no matter how small or irrelevant.
Common examples include:
• Forgetting to list a short-term prescription
• Misreporting dates of routine treatment
• Confusion over whether a condition was diagnosed or merely evaluated
• Agent-entered summaries that oversimplify medical history
In the Protective Life denial, the insurer treated a documentation inconsistency as proof of fraud, even though the condition had no connection to the insured’s death and required no ongoing care.
When Agent Errors Cannot Be Used Against the Beneficiary
One of the most important aspects of this case was the role of the insurance agent. Courts have repeatedly held that insurers cannot benefit from mistakes made by their own agents, especially when the applicant acted in good faith.
Our review showed:
• The insured accurately disclosed the medical issue verbally
• The agent chose how to summarize the information
• Protective Life accepted the application without follow-up
• No additional medical records were requested before policy issuance
Once an insurer issues a policy under those circumstances, it assumes the risk that the application reflects its own agent’s work product.
Protective Life attempted to shift that risk onto the beneficiary. That strategy failed.
Why Materiality Matters More Than Accuracy Alone
Not every incorrect answer justifies denial. The legal question is not whether the answer was perfect, but whether the information would have changed the insurer’s decision to issue coverage or adjust premiums.
In this case:
• The condition was minor and resolved
• The insured required no ongoing treatment
• The cause of death was completely unrelated
• Protective Life’s underwriting guidelines did not treat the condition as disqualifying
We demonstrated that even if the application had been recorded differently, the policy would have been issued on the same terms. That fact alone defeated the denial.
Similar Denials We Have Successfully Challenged
This Protective Life recovery follows a familiar pattern we see nationwide. Insurers frequently rely on small application issues to justify large financial denials.
Examples include:
• A claim denied over undisclosed physical therapy from years earlier
• A policy rescinded because a single counseling visit was not listed
• Coverage voided due to misstated height or weight entered by an agent
• Denials based on outdated or inactive prescriptions
In each scenario, the insurer focused on technical accuracy while ignoring materiality, underwriting practice, and causation. Those denials often collapse when challenged.
Why Beneficiaries Should Never Accept These Denials at Face Value
Denial letters are written to sound final and authoritative. Words like fraud, rescission, and material misrepresentation are used to discourage further inquiry. But many of these denials do not survive legal scrutiny.
The seventy five thousand dollar Protective Life claim was denied with confidence. It was paid only after the insurer was forced to confront its own underwriting conduct and legal obligations.
If a claim is denied based on a supposed application error, especially during the contestability period, it deserves careful review. Minor inconsistencies, agent mistakes, and irrelevant medical history do not automatically void coverage.
This case is a reminder that denied life insurance claims can often be reversed when the facts are properly examined and the law is correctly applied.