A $75,000 life insurance claim from Protective Life was denied after the company alleged a misstatement in the insured’s application. The beneficiary was told that a minor inconsistency related to a treatment listed incorrectly invalidated the entire policy. Protective Life insisted that the misrepresentation was material and refused to pay. That’s when our attorneys stepped in. After a detailed review of the application, underwriting file, and medical records, we found that the alleged misrepresentation was not only immaterial, but also stemmed from how the insurance agent had entered the information. Our team presented a strong legal argument, backed by documentation and case law, and successfully reversed the denial. The full $75,000 was paid to our client. If you need a beneficiary dispute attorney in South Dakota call us.
The Hidden Risk of Small Mistakes in Life Insurance Applications
This case highlights a growing problem in the life insurance industry: insurers are denying claims based on minor application errors that were never intended to deceive. Something as simple as checking the wrong box, forgetting to list a short-term prescription, or misunderstanding how to report an old surgery can result in the loss of a claim especially if the insured dies within the two-year contestability period.
Insurance companies often revisit every detail of the application after the insured’s death, hunting for any inconsistency they can label as a "material misrepresentation." In this case, the insured had disclosed a past illness to the insurance agent, but the way it was entered on the form made it appear as though no treatment had been received. Protective Life used this discrepancy to deny the claim, even though the illness had no relation to the cause of death.
Real-World Examples of How Innocent Mistakes Trigger Claim Denials
In a similar case we resolved, a $100,000 policy was denied because the insured failed to mention physical therapy for a knee injury that happened six years before the policy application. The insurer argued that the omission suggested a chronic condition, despite the fact that the insured had no ongoing issues and died of a heart attack unrelated to the knee. Our attorneys showed that the omission was not material and that the insurer never requested records from the relevant time period. The denial was overturned.
Another client came to us after a $50,000 claim was denied because the insured had ticked “No” on a question about "anxiety or depression" despite having visited a counselor once during college. The policy had been in force for 18 months when the insured died in a car crash. The insurer claimed fraud and rescinded the policy. We argued that the insurer’s own underwriting guidelines did not treat single counseling visits as material, and the denial was reversed.
Avoiding Preventable Denials Starts With the Application
The best way to prevent a life insurance denial is by approaching the application process with care and clarity. Most applicants assume that the agent will ensure everything is entered correctly. But as we’ve seen, even agent errors can later be used against the policyholder. Misstatements do not have to be intentional for an insurer to rescind a policy. That’s why every response matters even those that seem trivial.
Key takeaways from the Protective Life case:
Misstatements about unrelated conditions can still be used to void a policy
Even if the insured disclosed information to the agent, how it's written on the form matters most
Insurers often act as though small inconsistencies are grounds for fraud
When our firm is called in, we investigate whether the insurer acted in good faith, whether the misstatement truly affected underwriting, and whether the denial violates legal standards of materiality. In this case, Protective Life could not show that it would have denied or altered coverage if the information had been entered properly.
Denied Claims Can Often Be Challenged and Reversed
This $75,000 recovery is one of many where our law firm has successfully disputed an insurer’s attempt to deny payment based on flawed or exaggerated claims of misrepresentation. We understand how insurers operate and how they weaponize application reviews during the contestability period. If a life insurance claim has been denied especially for a supposed error in the application there is a strong chance the denial can be contested with the right legal strategy.
Let us review the denial and determine whether it was justified. In many cases, we find that the insurer ignored context, overlooked underwriting failures, or exaggerated the impact of a minor mistake. We hold them accountable and fight for the benefits our clients deserve.