Our firm recently secured a full two hundred twenty thousand dollar payout after Brighthouse Financial denied a life insurance claim based on alleged misrepresentations in the policy application. The insurer claimed the insured misstated both immigration status and medical history and attempted to void the policy during the contestability period.
After a comprehensive legal and factual review, we demonstrated that the denial was unsupported by the underwriting record, inconsistent with the insurer’s own procedures, and legally defective. Faced with documented proof of waiver and immateriality, Brighthouse reversed its decision and paid the claim in full.
This case illustrates how insurers frequently misuse technical application issues during the first two years of coverage to avoid paying valid life insurance claims.
How Immigration Status Becomes a Pretext for Denial
Immigration status has become an increasingly common justification used by insurers to rescind policies after death. Applications often ask whether the applicant is a U.S. citizen, permanent resident, or lawfully present. These questions are frequently ambiguous, especially for individuals with pending applications, temporary statuses, or mixed documentation.
In this case, Brighthouse alleged the insured falsely represented permanent residency. The reality was more nuanced. The insured had lawful presence, a valid identification number, and pending immigration documentation that was fully verifiable at the time of application. Brighthouse issued the policy, accepted premiums, and never requested clarification before approving coverage.
Insurers are permitted to assess immigration status as part of underwriting, but they must do so consistently and in good faith. If the insurer identifies a discrepancy and still issues the policy without further inquiry, courts often find that the insurer waived the right to later contest coverage based on that issue.
Why Waiver Matters in Immigration-Based Denials
Waiver occurs when an insurer has sufficient information to investigate a potential issue but chooses to proceed with issuing the policy anyway. In this Brighthouse claim, underwriting notes showed the insurer had the ability to request additional documentation and did not do so. That failure became central to overturning the denial.
We regularly see similar patterns in immigration-based denials, including:
• Insurers issuing policies after verifying Social Security numbers
• Underwriters ignoring incomplete residency documentation
• Policies approved despite internal flags or unanswered questions
Once coverage is issued under those circumstances, insurers cannot later claim they were misled.
Medical History Omissions That Do Not Justify Rescission
The second basis for Brighthouse’s denial involved alleged failure to disclose medical visits. The insurer pointed to neurologist appointments for headaches and argued that these visits suggested a more serious undisclosed condition.
This tactic is common. Insurers often equate routine or precautionary medical visits with material medical conditions, even when no diagnosis was made and no treatment was ongoing.
In this case, the insured had never been diagnosed with a neurological disorder, had not been prescribed long-term medication, and did not die from any condition remotely related to headaches. Brighthouse attempted to retroactively transform ordinary medical care into a material misrepresentation.
The Legal Standard Insurers Must Meet
To lawfully rescind a policy during the contestability period, an insurer must show that the omitted information would have changed its underwriting decision. That standard is often not met when the alleged omission involves:
• Routine specialist consultations
• Short-term symptoms without diagnosis
• Conditions unrelated to the cause of death
• Medical information available through records the insurer never requested
In this case, Brighthouse did not obtain medical records before issuing the policy, even though it had authorization to do so. That failure undermined its argument that the omitted information was material.
The Forensic Review That Changed the Outcome
Our attorneys conducted a detailed analysis of the full policy file, including:
• The original application and supplemental forms
• Underwriting notes and internal checklists
• Authorization forms for medical and identity verification
• Policy issuance timelines and premium acceptance history
That review revealed multiple inconsistencies between Brighthouse’s denial position and its underwriting conduct. Most importantly, the insurer approved the policy without resolving the very issues it later cited as disqualifying.
Once we presented this evidence and applied governing contract and insurance law principles, the denial became untenable.
Why These Denials Are So Common and So Often Wrong
Misrepresentation denials appeal to insurers because they shift the burden onto grieving beneficiaries. Words like fraud and void policy create the impression that nothing can be done. In reality, many of these denials are built on weak foundations.
Immigration status questions are often unclear. Medical disclosure questions are frequently overbroad. Insurers rely on hindsight and post-claim investigations to recast ordinary application issues as intentional deception.
When those denials are challenged with underwriting evidence and legal analysis, they frequently collapse.
What This Case Shows Beneficiaries Should Do
A denial based on alleged misrepresentation is not the final word. Especially during the contestability period, insurers must meet strict legal requirements. They cannot rely on speculation, minor inconsistencies, or information they chose not to investigate earlier.
This two hundred twenty thousand dollar Brighthouse Financial claim was paid in full because the denial could not survive scrutiny.
If your life insurance claim was denied based on immigration status, residency questions, or alleged medical omissions, the decision deserves careful review. Many such denials can be reversed when the insurer’s own file tells a different story than the denial letter suggests.