Life Insurance Lawyer Michigan
Michigan Denied Life Insurance Claims Recently Settled
- Securian interpleader lawsuit settled $314,000.00
- Coronavirus denial because not known $021,500.00
- Allstate alcohol exclusion issue resolved $103,820.00
- Denial of SGLI claim due to beneficiaries $404,200.00
- Prudential material misrepresentation health $536,000.00
- Colonial autoerotic asphyxiation death claim $318,000.00
- Michigan denied life insurance claim $1,523,000.00
- COVID-19 reason for denying life insurance $259,400.00
- Denial FEGLI claim due to exclusions $431,000.00
- American General spouse against sister $758,400.00
- Symetra issue regarding policy lapse $101,900.00
- Lincoln Heritage three policy exclusions $227,000.00
- Veterans Life denial of benefits wife won $529,900.00
- MetLife accidental death & dismemberment $406,300.00
- AD&D claim denied due to exclusions we won $833,900.00
- American Amicable exclusion for suicide $118,000.00
- Pruco dementia not disclosed on application $251,000.00
- Sed Mutual Life denial of life benefits we resolved $480,000.00
- Denied life insurance claim Michigan $914,500.00
- Michigan life insurance and divorce case $379,000.00
- Monarch Life denial of claim we won for client $775,000.00
- General prescription drug interaction $208,000.00
- Western Reserve sickness exclusion $105,100.00
What if you die while doing something really dumb?
It is hard to deny that certain people, at certain times in their lives, are more likely to make poor decisions than others. Insurance companies recognize this and set premium rates accordingly. Teenage drivers, for example, tend to pay higher rates for car insurance than older individuals because they generally lack the experience and maturity it takes to safely navigate the roadways.
Life insurance is slightly different. Aside from actuarial tables dictating that older individuals pay higher life insurance premiums, it is hard for a life insurance company to predict with any degree of certainty whether a person in a particular age group is more likely to engage in conduct that increases the likelihood of death.
Consequently, life insurance companies simply draft broad policy language that exonerates them from paying death benefits if the policyholder dies while doing something … well, stupid. That’s not what the policy actually says, of course. Instead, the policy will say something along the lines of “the insurance company is not obligated to pay a death benefit to the insured’s beneficiary if the policyholder dies as a direct and proximate result of voluntary and wantonly exposing himself to unnecessary and known danger.”
As one Illinois family found out, however, life insurance companies often rely too heavily on such language as an excuse for denying valid claims. This article explores a case that tested the boundaries of this sort of policy language. The results may surprise you. They may also give you hope.
A night on the town turns ugly
This case involved a group of friends who might be described as “rowdy.” On the night in question, five men in their 30s all went out for a night on the town. They were reported to have visited several bars and taverns throughout the evening, yet the records are unclear as to whether the young man driving the car had anything to drink that night.
As the group left the last establishment of the evening, a man named Derrick was feeling especially boisterous. As his buddies all climbed into the driver’s sedan, Derrick decided to jump onto the roof of the car and hang on for dear life as the car drove off into the night. Derrick was a rather tall and strong young man, and the sheer length of his arms allowed him to hold onto the roof of the car perhaps better than most.
In fact, Derrick had ridden on the roof of this car several times before. Additionally, several of his friends had also taken a “roof ride” over the course of the past several months. Until the night at issue, this activity had been nothing but a silly game played by a group of friends who liked to party and have fun.
On this fateful night, however, things didn’t go as they had before. Rather, as the driver sped away from that final tavern, Derrick lost his grip on the roof of the car, slid off, and hit his head and neck directly on the pavement. Derrick’s friends didn’t even know anything was wrong until they drove back that way sometime later and found his deceased body lying in the roadway.
A young widow is scared to make a life insurance claim
Unfortunately, Derrick left behind a young widow named Nancy. Nancy didn’t know much about the law or about life insurance but she was almost embarrassed to make a claim for death benefits against Derrick’s life insurance policy. Nonetheless, she really needed the $100,000 payout if she was ever going to get her life back on track without him. She submitted the claim, which included police reports of the incident, as well as a toxicology report showing that Derrick’s blood alcohol content was .16%.
It didn’t surprise Nancy one bit when the insurer denied her claim. While she never read the policy language, she was pretty sure the insurer wouldn’t cover a death that happened while the insured was doing something she viewed as incredibly stupid.
Fortunately, one of Nancy’s friends was not willing to give up so easily. The friend talked Nancy into talking with a lawyer who specialized in the wrongful denial of life insurance claims. Nancy forwarded the lawyer Derrick’s policy and later had a one-hour consultation with him.
Derrick’s case was not as cut-and-dried as Nancy originally believed. According to the attorney, it was highly relevant that: (a) Derrick had engaged in “roof-rides” many times before; (b) his friends had done the same; and (c) up until the night in question, none of them had ever suffered any injuries. The lawyer knew that courts tend to construe policy language in a light most favorable of the insured. In light of all that, he thought he might be able to convince a court that Derrick’s actions were not the type of “known danger” that would justify a claim denial.
With Nancy’s blessing, the lawyer sued the life insurance company for wrongful denial of claim. As it turned out, Nancy’s lawyer was correct in his assumptions. The court did find that the past actions of Derrick and his friends (without injury) took Derrick’s actions out of the realm of a “known danger.” As such, the court ordered the insurance company to pay Nancy the full death benefits, with interest.
The moral of this story is simple: beneficiaries who have had a life insurance claim denied should never take the insurance company’s initial denial letter as the final word on the matter. This area of the law tends to favor policyholders over insurance companies. Cases with even the most embarrassing factual scenarios can be won.
As attorneys who specialize in the wrongful denial of life insurance claims, it is our job to help assess your case and get you the benefits you deserve. If you are facing a life insurance claim denial – no matter what the circumstances of your loved one’s death – call us today. We’re here to help.