Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company routinely denies life insurance claims based on suicide exclusions, contestability clauses, policy lapse arguments, and beneficiary or conversion disputes. While courts sometimes uphold these denials, many collapse when the insurer’s investigation, notice procedures, or interpretation of policy language are challenged.
Our firm recently recovered $207,000 on a Reliance Standard life insurance claim that had been denied. The insurer relied on technical defenses that did not withstand legal scrutiny once the policy, underwriting record, and factual timeline were reviewed in full. The beneficiary ultimately received the full policy proceeds.
That result is consistent with outcomes seen in other Reliance Standard disputes nationwide. Below are additional litigated cases showing when Reliance prevails and when its defenses are vulnerable.
Suicide Exclusion Enforced Within Policy Window
In one case, a widow sued after Reliance denied benefits under a suicide exclusion that applied during the first two years of coverage. The beneficiary argued the death was accidental.
The court ruled for Reliance, finding the exclusion clearly written and supported by evidence of intent. The appellate court affirmed. This case shows that suicide exclusions are enforceable when timing and proof requirements are satisfied.
Policy Lapse for Non-Payment Upheld
After an insured’s death, Reliance denied benefits based on non-payment of premiums and policy lapse. The beneficiary argued improper notice.
The court found that Reliance followed required notice and grace period procedures and granted summary judgment for the insurer. Courts typically uphold lapse denials when documentation shows procedural compliance.
Contestability Clause Applied to Application Misstatements
Reliance denied a claim within the two-year contestability period, alleging application inaccuracies that affected eligibility. The beneficiary challenged the denial as bad faith.
The court sided with Reliance, holding that insurers may investigate and rescind coverage during the contestability window when supported by evidence. This contrasts with cases beyond two years, where denials face higher barriers.
Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion Enforced
In another dispute, Reliance denied benefits under a pre-existing condition exclusion after the insured died shortly after policy issuance. Medical records showed the cause of death was related to a known condition.
The court upheld the denial, emphasizing that courts enforce exclusions when timelines and causation are clearly established.
Change of Beneficiary Documentation Required
A claimant sued Reliance after being denied benefits due to lack of a valid beneficiary change form. Although the insured allegedly intended to change beneficiaries, no signed document was submitted.
The court ruled for Reliance, finding that strict compliance with beneficiary designation requirements controlled. Courts generally enforce written designation rules absent clear waiver or misconduct.
Interpleader Used Properly in Beneficiary Dispute
When multiple parties claimed the same death benefit, Reliance filed an interpleader action and deposited funds with the court. One claimant alleged bad faith.
The court rejected the claim, holding that interpleader was appropriate and protected Reliance from double liability. Filing interpleader is not considered a denial when done in good faith.
Missed Conversion Deadline After Employment Termination
A widow sued after Reliance denied benefits because her husband failed to convert group coverage to an individual policy within the required time after leaving employment.
The court enforced the conversion deadline and ruled for Reliance. These cases turn heavily on whether the insurer provided proper notice of conversion rights.
Accidental Death Rider Denial Affirmed
In a claim seeking accidental death benefits in addition to base coverage, Reliance denied the rider payout, arguing the death was not accidental.
The court agreed, finding the beneficiary failed to meet the burden of proving an accident under the rider’s definition. Courts often apply stricter proof standards to riders than to base policies.
War Risk Exclusion Applied
Reliance denied a claim for a death occurring in a military conflict zone under a war risk exclusion. The beneficiary challenged the denial.
The court upheld Reliance’s position, finding the exclusion clearly applied based on the insured’s circumstances and location at the time of death.
What the $207,000 Recovery and These Cases Show
Across Reliance Standard disputes, several themes consistently appear:
Contestability defenses succeed only within strict time limits
Lapse and conversion denials depend on proper notice
Exclusions require clear causation and policy language
Beneficiary disputes hinge on documentation
Courts scrutinize insurer procedure as much as policy text
The $207,000 recovery demonstrates that Reliance denials are not final when exclusions are stretched, notice is deficient, or the insurer overreaches.
Challenging a Reliance Standard Life Insurance Denial
A denial from Reliance Standard should trigger a detailed legal review, not acceptance. Many denials unravel when timelines, notice requirements, and evidentiary gaps are exposed.
Effective challenges often focus on:
Whether the policy was beyond contestability
Whether exclusions clearly apply to the cause of death
Whether lapse or conversion notices were properly given
Whether Reliance met its burden of proof
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Reliance Standard deny a claim for suicide?
Yes, within the policy’s suicide exclusion period and with evidence of intent. After that period, suicide is generally covered.
Are conversion deadlines strictly enforced?
Often yes, but failures in notice or inconsistent insurer conduct can change the outcome.
Is interpleader a denial?
No. It is a neutral action used when multiple beneficiaries claim the same benefit.
Does legal representation matter in Reliance cases?
Yes. These cases turn on technical ERISA rules, policy language, and procedural compliance that insurers rely on heavily.