Life insurance policies often include exclusions for suicide and self-inflicted injury, but those exclusions are not as straightforward as insurers like to claim. In many cases, the policy language is vague, outdated, or internally inconsistent. When a death occurs under unclear circumstances, insurers may rely on these exclusions to deny claims even when the facts do not clearly support their position.
Courts frequently scrutinize suicide and self-inflicted injury exclusions because they involve intent, mental state, and causation. When policy language fails to clearly define what is excluded, beneficiaries may still be entitled to the death benefit.
Below are ten real world examples that illustrate how ambiguous exclusion language has led to wrongful denials.
Examples of Self-Inflicted Injury and Suicide Exclusion Denials
1. GPM Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer denied the claim even though the coroner ruled the death accidental.
Dispute: Whether the policy’s suicide exclusion applied only to intentional death or also to accidental self-inflicted harm.
Result: The court found the term suicide ambiguous and ruled in favor of the beneficiary.
2. Index Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer classified a drug overdose as a self-inflicted injury.
Dispute: Whether self-inflicted injury required intent or included unintentional conduct.
Result: The exclusion was deemed ambiguous, and the claim was paid.
3. Stonebridge Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer applied a suicide exclusion after a death involving carbon monoxide exposure.
Dispute: Whether reckless conduct constituted suicide under the policy.
Result: The court ruled that the suicide language did not clearly apply and ordered payment.
4. Split Dollar Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer relied on a suicide exclusion following a firearm related death.
Dispute: Whether mental illness negated the intent required for suicide under the policy.
Result: The court found the term suicide unclear and awarded benefits.
5. Ethos Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer denied the claim based on the suicide exclusion.
Dispute: Whether intoxication affected the insured’s ability to form intent.
Result: The court ruled that the exclusion did not clearly apply.
6. American Memorial Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer asserted suicide based on the manner of death.
Dispute: Whether irrational behavior caused by depression fell within the exclusion.
Result: The policy language was found ambiguous, and benefits were awarded.
7. Transpremier Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer claimed the death was premeditated.
Dispute: Whether impulsive behavior met the policy’s definition of suicide.
Result: The court ruled in favor of the beneficiary due to unclear policy wording.
8. Occidental Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer denied the claim under the suicide exclusion.
Dispute: Whether insanity or psychosis affected the application of the exclusion.
Result: The court found that the exclusion did not clearly address mental incapacity.
9. American Equity Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer relied on a suicide exclusion involving a firearm death.
Dispute: Whether accidental mishandling could be classified as suicide.
Result: The exclusion was interpreted narrowly, and benefits were paid.
10. Oxford Life Insurance Claim Denied
Issue: The insurer denied the claim after a prescription medication overdose.
Dispute: Whether negligent medication use constituted suicide under the policy.
Result: The court ruled that suicide was not clearly defined and awarded the claim.
Why Suicide and Self-Inflicted Injury Exclusions Are Frequently Disputed
These denials often turn on a few recurring issues:
• Whether intent is clearly required
• Whether mental illness alters the analysis
• Whether accidental conduct is being mislabeled
• Whether policy language is outdated or vague
• Whether the insurer relied on assumptions rather than evidence
Courts generally require insurers to prove that an exclusion clearly applies. When ambiguity exists, it is often interpreted in favor of coverage.
How These Denials Are Challenged
Disputes involving suicide exclusions usually require close examination of:
• The exact wording of the exclusion
• Coroner and medical examiner findings
• Medical and mental health records
• Toxicology results
• The timing of the policy and contestability period
Insurers frequently overreach by relying on labels rather than facts.
Insurers Commonly Involved in These Disputes
Claims involving suicide and self-inflicted injury exclusions often arise with insurers such as:
• GPM Life Insurance
• Index Life Insurance
• Stonebridge Life Insurance
• Transpremier Life Insurance
• Ethos Life Insurance
• American Memorial Life Insurance
Each policy uses different exclusion language, which makes individual review essential.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can insurers deny claims anytime suicide is alleged?
No. The insurer must show that the exclusion clearly applies based on the policy language and evidence.
Does mental illness affect suicide exclusions?
Often yes. Many policies fail to address mental incapacity, which creates ambiguity.
Can accidental deaths be misclassified as suicide?
Yes, and this is one of the most common reasons these denials are challenged.
Does the contestability period matter?
In many policies, suicide exclusions apply only during a limited period, typically the first two years.
Are these exclusions strictly enforced by courts?
Courts often require clear and unambiguous language before enforcing them.