Articles Tagged with “life insurance”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Salyers v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, ___ F.3d ___, No. 15-56371 (9th Cir. September 20, 2017) recently rejected an attempt by MetLife to avoid paying a $250,000 death benefit to a widow who had purchased $250,000 in life insurance coverage on her husband prior to his death. In what has recently become an increasingly common scenario, Susan Salyers purchased $250,000 in life insurance on her husband Gary Wolk through a MetLife plan offered by her employer and timely paid all of her premiums on the policy, but MetLife refused to pay the full amount of the death benefit after discovering that Ms. Salyers had not provided the required “evidence of insurability” when purchasing the insurance coverage.

According to the fine print in the MetLife policy, Ms. Salyers was required to submit “evidence of insurability” (proof that her husband was in good health) before any life insurance coverage greater than $50,000 would take effect. However, Ms. Salyers had originally applied for only $30,000 in coverage, and through a clerical error, her employer enrolled her in a policy providing $500,000 in coverage, for which she paid the full premium amounts to MetLife via payroll deductions. At the next open enrollment period, Ms. Salyers elected $250,000 in coverage for her husband, but no one ever told her that she needed to provide “evidence of insurability” in order to obtain this coverage. Nonetheless, MetLife happily accepted her premium payments while never insisting on “evidence of insurability.”  Two weeks later, Ms. Salyers’ husband died.

After the death of her husband, Ms. Salyers submitted a claim to MetLife for the life insurance that she had purchased, but MetLife refused to pay the $250,000 benefit, insisting that she had failed to meet the terms of the policy by not submitting “evidence of insurability.” This was the first time Ms. Salyers had ever heard about a requirement for “evidence of insurability.” Neither the employer nor MetLife had notified Ms. Salyers that she needed to complete further paperwork to be eligible for the life insurance coverage. After MetLife denied the claim, Ms. Salyers sued Met Life, asserting that by accepting her premium payments in the amounts requested for the $250,000 coverage and failing to request evidence of insurability, it was bound to pay the $250,000 death benefit. At trial, judgment was entered in favor of MetLife, and Ms. Salyers appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

When completing an application for life, health or disability insurance coverage, an insurance company will ask a broad array of questions designed to determine whether an individual is a good risk and the type of coverage that should be issued. It is important to carefully complete the application form to make sure that all of the answers are 100% accurate; otherwise, the insurance company may later deny your claim. Unfortunately, many people do not find out that they failed to disclose important information on the insurance application until a claim is submitted. The insurance company then denies the claim contending that the insured made a material misrepresentation in the application because the insured failed to disclose important information such as a previous health condition or by their failure to answer “yes” to questions which were answered “no.” If the misrepresentation is material to the insurer issuing coverage, the insurance company has the right to deny the claim, rescind the policy and refund the premiums that have been paid.

The falsity of any statement in the application for any policy may not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless such false statement materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the insurer. (IC 27-8-5-5(c)). False representations on an insurance application made by an insured concerning a material fact, which mislead, will void an insurance contract, just as in any other contractual relationship, regardless of whether the misrepresentation was innocently made or made with fraudulent intent. Ruhlig v. American Community Mut. Ins. Co., 696 N.E.2d 877, 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) citing Watson v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 564 N.E.2d 302, 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990); American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kivela, 408 N.E.2d 805, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980); Bennett v. CrownLife Ins. Co., 776 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002); Jesse v. American Community Mut. Ins. Co., 725 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Continue reading