After a life insurance claim is denied, beneficiaries are often told they have the right to appeal. The appeal is submitted with documents, explanations, and supporting records. Then comes a familiar response from the insurer.
Your appeal is under review.
Additional information may be required.
We will contact you if anything further is needed.
What does not come is clarity. The insurer does not identify what is missing. It does not explain what would change the outcome. It does not tell the beneficiary what problem remains unsolved.
This lack of specificity is intentional.
The Illusion of an Open Door
Insurers often present the appeal process as collaborative. The language suggests that if the beneficiary simply provides the right document, the claim might be approved.
In reality, many appeals are reviewed with the denial already locked in. Clarifying what is missing would give the beneficiary a roadmap to fixing the problem. Insurers have no incentive to do that.
Vague responses preserve discretion while creating the appearance of good faith review.
Why Specificity Is Risky for Insurers
If an insurer clearly states what is missing, it creates accountability. Once the beneficiary provides that item, the insurer must either pay the claim or explain why the stated deficiency no longer matters.
That explanation can later be scrutinized in litigation. Changing rationales are heavily disfavored by courts, especially when the insurer had an opportunity to be clear during the appeal.
By refusing to clarify, insurers protect themselves from being boxed into a position they may not be able to defend later.
Appeals Are Often Used to Build the Defense
Another reason insurers stay vague is that appeals generate evidence. Every document submitted becomes part of the claim file. Every explanation can be reframed or selectively quoted later.
By not specifying what is missing, insurers encourage beneficiaries to submit as much information as possible. This allows the insurer to mine the record for statements, inconsistencies, or medical references that can be used to reinforce the denial.
The appeal becomes less about reconsideration and more about strengthening the insurer’s litigation posture.
ERISA Appeals and Strategic Silence
In ERISA governed life insurance claims, the appeal stage is often the last chance to submit evidence. Insurers know this.
Refusing to clarify what is missing forces beneficiaries to guess. If the beneficiary fails to submit something critical, the insurer can later argue that the record is closed and incomplete.
At the same time, if the beneficiary submits too much, the insurer may selectively rely on unfavorable portions while ignoring the rest.
Silence preserves control over the administrative record.
What This Behavior Signals About the Claim
When an insurer refuses to identify what is missing, it often means the appeal has already undermined the original denial rationale.
Rather than acknowledge that weakness, the insurer avoids narrowing the dispute. Vague language keeps all options open and delays the moment when a final position must be taken.
In many cases, this is a sign the insurer expects litigation and is managing risk rather than reassessing the claim.
Why Asking Again Rarely Helps
Beneficiaries often respond by sending follow up emails asking for clarification. These requests are usually ignored or met with the same generic language.
From the insurer’s perspective, there is no upside to being more specific. Providing clarity only helps the claimant. Silence costs the insurer nothing.
Waiting for a clearer answer can waste valuable time while deadlines continue to run.
How Courts View This Tactic
Courts are increasingly skeptical of insurers who hide the ball during appeals. A refusal to explain what information is needed can support arguments that the review process was not fair or meaningful.
In ERISA cases, lack of transparency can contribute to findings of procedural irregularity. In non ERISA cases, it can support claims of unreasonable delay or bad faith depending on the jurisdiction.
What seems like a minor communication issue often becomes significant once the dispute reaches court.
The Practical Takeaway
When a life insurer refuses to clarify what is missing in an appeal, it is not an invitation to keep guessing. It is a signal.
The appeal should be treated as a formal record building exercise, not a collaborative back and forth. Beneficiaries should focus on submitting objective evidence, preserving proof of submission, and documenting the insurer’s lack of response.
Clarity rarely comes from the insurer. It usually comes later, when the insurer is forced to explain its position under oath.