Most families never connect a denied life insurance claim to the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, these cases usually start and end in lower courts. Yet the way justices approach contract law and benefits disputes sets the framework for how every denial is ultimately judged.
When Textualism Controls the Outcome
Textualist reasoning treats the policy as the final word. If the contract says the policy excludes a death within two years of issue due to suicide, then that clause is enforced exactly as written. There is no sympathy analysis, no weighing of what seems fair. Beneficiaries caught in this framework often feel blindsided because they never negotiated the language and may not have even understood the exclusions at the time of purchase. For insurers, though, this approach creates certainty, and certainty often favors the company.
The Broader Purpose in Purposivism
Other courts, borrowing from a purposivist outlook, step back and ask: what is life insurance supposed to achieve? The obvious answer is financial security for the family left behind. When an insurer tries to hang a denial on a vague technicality say, a missed premium notice where payments were still being accepted judges leaning toward purposivism may view that as undermining the basic promise of coverage. This lens can sometimes level the playing field for beneficiaries who would otherwise lose on a technical reading.
Pragmatism and the Real-World Stakes
Pragmatism looks different still. A judge applying pragmatic reasoning may ask, “What result here actually makes sense in practice?” Suppose an insurer denies benefits because the beneficiary name was entered incorrectly on a form, even though everyone agrees who the intended beneficiary was. A pragmatic court might resolve that dispute in favor of the rightful claimant, reasoning that the alternative would invite chaos and injustice. The focus is not just the contract or statute, but how the ruling will ripple outward.
Originalism’s Grip on Benefits Law
Originalism has its place too. Many life insurance disputes involving employer-provided plans fall under ERISA, a statute written in the 1970s. Originalist reasoning asks what Congress intended when that law was passed. The upside is consistency, since courts keep returning to the same historical touchstone. The downside is that beneficiaries often find themselves trapped in a rigid system that was not built to handle the complexities of modern life insurance disputes.
Why Families Should Care About These Philosophies
Even if your case never reaches Washington, the philosophies applied by the Supreme Court filter down to the trial court level. They influence how judges read policies, how appellate courts set standards of review, and even how insurers decide which denials are safe to defend. That is why two families facing nearly identical denials can walk away with opposite results depending on the jurisdiction and the judicial approach in play.
For families, the lesson is not to memorize these legal theories. The lesson is that outcomes in denied life insurance cases are shaped by deeper currents in the law. Having an attorney who understands how these philosophies drive results can be the difference between an insurer holding onto the money and a family finally receiving the benefits they were promised.