Articles Tagged with “life insurance”

Bill M. worked for a large industrial company until he became disabled in 2005. When Bill’s illness became so severe that he began to become concerned that he may not live much longer, he called his employer’s benefits center in April of 2018 to confirm that he was still covered for $226,000 in group life insurance provided by the employer in order to ensure that his wife Diana would be financially protected if he passed away. The benefits center provided written confirmation that Bill was still covered for $226,000 of group life insurance. The next month, Bill passed away and Diana contacted the employer’s benefits center to file a claim for the $226,000 in life insurance benefits under the group life insurance policy.

Unfortunately, although the employer’s benefits center promised Diana that it was processing her claim through their insurance department, months and months went by without any action on her life insurance claim. After several months and dozens of phone calls to the employee benefits center without receiving payment of her life insurance proceeds, Diana contacted O’Ryan Law Firm to help her pursue payment of her husband’s life insurance benefits.

After thoroughly reviewing Diana’s claim, O’Ryan Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana seeking to force the employer to pay the life insurance proceeds. The employer contended that Bill’s life insurance coverage ended when he stopped receiving long term disability (“LTD”) benefits under the employer’s group LTD policy. Diana’s attorneys at O’Ryan Law Firm requested and obtained documents from the employer that provided evidence as to why Bill’s LTD benefits had been terminated and why the employer had represented that Bill was still covered under its group life insurance policy as of April of 2018.

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