Our firm successfully overturned a $78,500 denied life insurance claim involving Kemper Life Insurance. The denial was based on alleged misrepresentation discovered during a contestability period review, along with claims that the insured failed to fully disclose pre existing medical information. After a detailed legal challenge, the insurer reversed its position and paid the full death benefit.
This case highlights how insurers often rely on vague underwriting arguments and aggressive post death investigations to deny otherwise valid claims, particularly when death occurs early in the policy term.
The Basis for the Kemper Life Denial
Kemper Life denied the claim after reviewing the original application and asserting that certain medical information was incomplete or inaccurately disclosed. The insurer relied on contestability period provisions that allow heightened scrutiny during the first two years of a policy.
Importantly, the insurer did not argue that the alleged omission caused the death. Instead, the denial was based on the position that the policy would have been issued differently had the insurer interpreted the medical history more broadly.
This type of denial is common. Insurers often use the contestability window to re underwrite the policy after death rather than at the time of application.
Contestability Period Tactics
During the contestability period, insurers are permitted to investigate application accuracy. However, they still bear the burden of proving that any alleged misstatement was material.
In this case, Kemper relied on selective medical records and hindsight analysis rather than clear evidence that the insured intentionally withheld information or misunderstood a direct question. The application language itself was vague and did not clearly require disclosure of the information Kemper later relied upon.
These ambiguities became central to overturning the denial.
Pre Existing Condition Allegations
Kemper also claimed that the insured had a pre existing medical condition that should have been disclosed. As in many cases, the insurer equated medical history review with nondisclosure, despite the absence of any diagnosis or treatment that clearly fell within the application’s questions.
Courts and regulators consistently distinguish between failing to disclose a known diagnosis and failing to predict future medical conclusions. Insurers often blur this line during claim review.
Our Legal Strategy
Our team reconstructed the underwriting timeline and demonstrated that:
The application questions were ambiguous
The insured had no reason to believe disclosure was required
The insurer issued the policy after reviewing available information
The alleged omission had no causal connection to the death
We also challenged the insurer’s reliance on internal underwriting guidelines that were never incorporated into the policy contract.
Once confronted with a full legal analysis and supporting documentation, Kemper reversed the denial and paid the $78,500 benefit.
Why These Denials Are Often Wrong
Contestability period denials frequently rely on hindsight rather than contract language. Insurers often attempt to rescind coverage based on information that was not clearly requested, not material, or already available to the insurer at the time of underwriting.
Many of these denials collapse once the application language, underwriting file, and medical records are examined together.
Key Takeaways for Beneficiaries
A contestability denial does not mean the insurer is correct
Misrepresentation must be material and proven
Ambiguous application questions favor the insured
Insurers cannot rewrite underwriting standards after death
Frequently Asked Questions About Contestability Denials
What is the contestability period
It is usually the first two years after a policy is issued, during which insurers may investigate application accuracy.
Can a claim be denied even if the death was unrelated
Yes, but the insurer must still prove material misrepresentation.
Does every application error justify denial
No. The misstatement must be significant and clearly required by the application.
Can insurers rely on internal underwriting rules
Not unless those rules are part of the policy contract.
Are these denials reversible
Yes. Many are overturned through appeal or legal action.
Final Result
This $78,500 Kemper Life case demonstrates how insurers often deny claims based on aggressive interpretations of contestability provisions rather than enforceable policy terms. With focused legal review, these denials can be challenged and reversed.
A denial letter is often just the insurer’s opening position, not the final outcome.