Have you been thinking about buying life insurance for the very first time? There are certain factors you should consider when buying life insurance for you and your family. At McKennon Law Group PC, our law firm is committed to helping families like yours make wise and informed decisions about life insurance and we are here to help every step of the way. Read on to learn more about what you should know about life insurance and contact our law group if you have any questions about getting started.

Why Do I Need Life Insurance?

You may be wondering why you need life insurance in the first place. Life insurance was created to help your family have financial security in the unfortunate event that you, your spouse or a parent passes away and leaves their loved ones in an unfavorable financial situation. Having a life insurance policy can help you pay off a mortgage, pay for a college education, fund your retirement or even help plan your estate and plan your will and testament. If you have loved ones or anyone close to you who depends on your income for support, that you feel would be put in a bad financial situation should you pass away, you should begin to consider paying for life insurance.

What Is Term Life Insurance?

Term life insurance gives you coverage for a certain period of time not your entire life. For example someone may purchase term life insurance for a period of time such as 25 years. If you purchase term life insurance you will need to pay an annual premium and, be advised that your term life insurance policy will not generate more cash value over time, so it is not a wise investment decision for everyone.

What Is Whole Life Insurance?

Different than term life insurance, whole life insurance does not cover a specific period of time. It instead covers, as its name suggests, the whole lifespan of the insured person. Whole life insurance is one of the most popular policies that we see at our law firm.

Whole life insurance can grow in value over time making it a wise investment vehicle for some people in certain financial situations. A whole life insurance policy will pay a predetermined, specific amount upon the death of the person who holds the policy and it offers protection on a lifelong basis, but that also defers tax. If you’re unsure which kind of life insurance policy is best for you, ask your lawyer.

How Much Life Insurance Coverage Should I Purchase?

There are many factors that a lawyer will take into consideration when advising a client upon how much money they should or should not purchase in life insurance coverage. In order to correctly estimate how much life insurance you or your loved one may need, you must consider the following criteria:

How much debt you are currently in
Your anticipated pension or social security benefits
The future anticipated income of the life to be insured
Any lifestyle changes a family will need to make after the insured’s death, such as a career change
And much more

What Mistakes Should I Avoid When Buying Life Insurance Coverage?

There are many things to consider when purchasing life insurance. First and foremost be sure to talk with an estate planning lawyer in your area to mitigate the risk of making any mistakes while you file for and purchase life insurance. Some people mistakenly leave the beneficiary designation line blank. This could lead to many problems in the future when many different people are fighting over the same life insurance money when the policy holder passes away. Always read your life insurance application as carefully as possible before you sign it, as some mistakes can be easily made on your application. SOme of these mistakes include failing to provide correct information, as well as also failing to understand terms and conditions of your policy.

Read your life insurance application carefully before you sign it. You should always talk to a lawyer before you sign any important contracts or documents as you need to understand what the terms and conditions say, and what rules you need to abide by. For example, tobacco use, drug use, even your financial income in addition to other factors can affect the terms and conditions of your policy. If you fail to understand the conditions or make a mistake on your application this could affect how much money you may be entitled to in the future.

Schedule a consultation with McKennon Law Group if you have questions about filing a life insurance policy.

The Ninth Circuit has recently joined the majority of federal courts in adopting the rule that if a claimant is able to convince a federal court to rule that an insurer’s review of an ERISA claim is deficient and it remands the matter back to the insurer based on the deficiencies, that constitutes “some success on the merits.” This is significant because it will support a claimant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The United States Supreme Court decided in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 in 2010, and since then, most federal courts have found that a remand to the claims administrator/insurer is considered “some success on the merits” for purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees under Hardt, but the Ninth Circuit had not spoken on the issue until recently, when it too adopted the rule in its holding of Woolsey v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 20-16885, __ Fed. Appx. __, 2022 WL 1598964 (9th Cir. 2022).

Michael Woolsey filed suit in federal district court after his claim for disability benefits was denied by Aetna. The district court remanded Woolsey’s claim to Aetna, finding that Aetna did not provide him with a full and fair review because its review process was deficient. The district court determined that a remand was warranted because Aetna (1) failed to assess the aggregate effect of Woolsey’s medical conditions; (2) gave dismissive treatment to reports from his treating specialists; (3) failed to address specific vocational requirements as required by the plan; (4) failed to inform Woolsey of a deficiency in the record and to consider those missing records; (5) failed to disclose independent reviewers’ reports; (6) failed to adequately explain what was necessary to correct the record; and (7) failed to adequately investigate his physicians’ reports. While the procedural errors and deficiencies did not warrant a de novo review, the district court concluded that their cumulative effect prevented a full development of the record and a “full and fair review,” relying on 29 U.S.C. Section 1133(2).

Woolsey moved for attorneys’ fees. The district court denied Woolsey’s motion holding that its remand to Aetna did not constitute “some success on the merits” because Woolsey did not prevail on his central claims. Woolsey appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court erred in applying the Hardt standard. The Ninth Circuit held that in reaching its decision, the district court failed to comply with the ruling in Hardt that district courts should avoid lengthy inquiries into how substantial a party’s success was. The Ninth Circuit further held that “some success on the merits” does not require a district court to assess the strength of the plaintiff’s claim and noted that while the Supreme Court remained silent on what constitutes the minimum success required to enable a successful motion for attorneys’ fees, it did not suggest that the requisite success was limited to the circumstances of the Hardt remand order. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court’s characterization of the remand in Hardt was far more than a trivial or purely procedural success, and the Hardt court’s decision not to set the remand as the minimum threshold required for “some success on the merits” makes it clear that less favorable relief can also meet the standard.

The Ninth Circuit denoted in its holding that any remand order on its own is not necessarily sufficient to provide a basis for a claimant to be awarded attorneys’ fees. The distinction here is that Woolsey’s claim was remanded because Aetna’s review of his claim had been deficient, suggesting that had the court found Aetna’s claim review to be complete and with no violations of ERISA, but rather remanded the claim on some strictly procedural ground, such remand would likely not provide a basis for him to be awarded attorneys’ fees. Although Aetna argued that the remand did not constitute “some success on the merits” because Woolsey did not expressly seek a remand in his complaint, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that a party’s “success” is not required to be in the form of the court granting the relief that was expressly sought in the complaint.

The implication of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Woolsey is that the door is open for ERISA claimants in the Ninth Circuit to move for attorneys’ fees when there is a remand to the claims administrator/insurer based on a court’s findings that the insurer violated ERISA in a material manner such that a claimant did not receive a full and fair review under ERISA. As the Hardt standard is somewhat vague, Ninth Circuit in Woolsey provided much needed guidance with regard to under what circumstances warrant a finding of “some success on the merits” that can give rise to a recovery of attorneys’ fees.

Aside from the impact that the Ninth Circuit’s decision has on claimants’ ability to move for attorneys’ fees in situations involving remands, another incidental impact it will likely have is to improve of the quality of insurers’ claim-review processes. Prior to Woolsey, insurers litigating in the Ninth Circuit knew that they had a chance of defeating claimants’ motions for attorneys’ fees by arguing that remand does not constitute “success on the merits.” Without any potential liability for attorneys’ fees, insurers are more likely to provide deficient reviews of claims, knowing that a district court may well remand the decision, but that such process would effectively cost the insurer nothing, because there was no risk of being ordered to pay attorneys’ fees based on a remand. Now, however, those insurers know that the Ninth Circuit courts will apply the Hardt standard consistently with other federal courts. Therefore, those insurers are more likely to provide better initial claims reviews in efforts to avoid orders to pay attorneys’ fees.

Considering the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Woolsey, claimants facing similar situations as Woolsey did can now operate with the knowledge that an insurer’s deficient claims review can open the door for attorneys’ fees to be awarded to them.

If you believe your insurer has not given your disability, life or accidental death claim a full and fair review, the experienced attorneys at McKennon Law Group PC can assist you to recover your denied insurance benefits and attorneys’ fees, whether a court determines your eligibility for benefits or remands your claim to the insurer for further review.

How Long Does It Take To Process A Life Insurance Claim In California?

Are you a beneficiary expecting a life insurance payout? If so, read on to learn what you can expect as a beneficiary, what you need to know about processing a life insurance claim, and what to do if the insurance company is taking longer than they should to provide you with your life insurance money.

In order to receive a life insurance payout, the beneficiary of the policy must file a life insurance claim as soon as possible after the death of the policyholder. Typically the payout will be received 30 to 60 days after the claim is entered, and beneficiaries can choose to receive a lump sum or have the funds deposited into a special account. If the total amount is not paid within a reasonable time, beneficiaries reserve the right to collect interest on the payout.

If you have questions about being a beneficiary to a life insurance policy, or have questions about the process of paying out a claim, contact McKennon Law Group PC today to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation. We’ll address any questions you have and ensure you understand the process that’s in front of you.

What Happens If A Beneficiary Is Not Designated While Enrolling In A Life Insurance Policy

It is not mandatory to designate beneficiaries when enrolling in a life insurance policy, but it would be wise to do so. Since a life insurance policy is a legally binding contract, insurance companies can only pay those listed as beneficiaries once the policyholder passes away. If a beneficiary has not been listed, the life insurance policy will go through the estate in probate, or will be distributed to next of kin. Sometimes mistakes or changes to beneficiary information on the policy can lead to payout delays. If your payout is delayed, consult with a life insurance attorney to help with the process.

Why Do Insurance Companies Sometimes Delay Or Deny Claims?

Insurance companies will also delay or deny claims for life insurance payouts with specific clauses listed in the policy. For example, if a policyholder dies within the first two years of the policy, the insurance company must contest the policy and investigate for material misrepresentation. Some life insurance policies contain a suicide clause, refusing to pay if the policyholder ends their own life. If the cause of death is homicide or accidental death, some life insurance companies will require a further investigation or a statement from law enforcement to make sure the beneficiary is not a suspect in the crime. The beneficiary must be acquitted of the crime in order to receive the payout.

What Should I Do If My Insurance Company Is Delaying In Paying Out My Claim?

All insurance companies are required to work on a good faith basis. Good faith is “a term that generally describes honest dealing. Depending on the exact setting, good faith may require an honest belief or purpose, faithful performance of duties, observance of fair dealing standards, or an absence of fraudulent intent.”

If you believe that your insurance company is not acting in good faith, you have the right to contact a lawyer and seek justice. Our lawyers know that insurance companies have a bottom line, and that they always look to make as much money as they can, and save as much money as they can. For this reason, they sometimes delay in paying out a claim, or deny it entirely. In these cases, our lawyers will communicate back and forth with your insurance company in order to investigate the situation and see whether or not the insurance company is operating in bad faith.

If not, we can still look into the situation in order to try and understand what is happening. With extensive knowledge of state and local law, our legal team are the representatives you need to ensure justice is being upheld and that you have access to the money you rightfully deserve as a beneficiary.

Schedule A Free, No-Obligation Consultation With McKennon Law Group PC If You Have Questions About Receiving A Life Insurance Payout As A Beneficiary

Not all California lawyers offer a free consultation for those in need of assistance with life insurance payouts. However, our lawyers at McKennon Law Group PC do. In your initial consultation, we take the time to understand your questions about life insurance, receiving your beneficiary money, and what you can expect as a beneficiary. And, if you feel that your life insurance company is acting in bad faith or is purposely delaying in paying out a claim, we will take action and fight back on your behalf.

A recent trend of lawsuits has involved Insurers who seek to avoid paying out life insurance or disability insurance benefits even though they have collected premiums on the policy, because they and the plan participant’s employers never obtained Evidence of Insurability (“EOI”). These insurers deny claims for life insurance and disability insurance benefits on the ground that a claimant was never covered by the policy. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Corey Skelton v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 33 F.4th 968 (8th Cir. 2022), recently provided some clarity as to when an insurer and employer have a fiduciary duty to the insured with respect to life insurance and disability insurance coverage and when those fiduciary duties are breached. In Skelton, Plaintiff worked for Davidson Hotels LLC (“Davidson”) and obtained supplemental life insurance coverage for his wife. The life insurance policy was issued by Reliance Standard (“Reliance”). The policy generally required EOI, including proof of good health, for a member to obtain coverage. However, if an applicant for supplemental life insurance was changing coverage amounts within 31 days of “a life event change (such as marriage, birth, or specific changes in employment status),” then the applicant was not required to submit an EOI and receive Reliance’s approval.

Mrs. Skelton had life insurance coverage for $100,000 and wanted to increase the coverage to $238,000. Her husband regained custody of his son, Mrs. Skelton’s step-son, and she asked Davidson whether this qualified as a life event that would allow her to elect supplemental life insurance. Davidson told her that this did qualify as a life event. Skelton applied for the supplemental coverage and in Davidson’s response she received a notice informing her that she was required to submit EOI. Mrs. Skelton subsequently received a “Benefit Verification / Deduction Authorization” document indicating that she had “Supplemental Term Life” insurance, with the reason for completing the form being listed as “Regaining custody of dependent child.” She then paid premiums for a few months, but stopped, and one year later she qualified for a waiver of her premiums retroactive to when her coverage began. She then passed away and her husband made a claim for death benefits under her policy, which Reliance denied for lack of coverage, stating that Mrs. Skelton was never covered because she did not provide EOI.

Reliance argued that because Davidson’s practice was to collect the premiums and then forward the premiums to it, Reliance did not have a fiduciary duty to Mrs. Skelton. However, the district court held that Reliance had a fiduciary duty to ensure that its system of administration did not allow it to collect premiums until coverage was actually effective. The court held that

“Fiduciary status . . . is not an all or nothing concept. A court must ask whether an entity is a fiduciary with respect to the particular activity in question.” Maniace v. Com. Bank of Kansas City, 40 F.3d 264, 267 (8th Cir. 1994), quoting Kerns v. Benefit Tr. Life Ins. Co., 992 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). “[A]n insurer who is not the plan administrator has no ERISA fiduciary duty” for a particular activity “unless the policy documents or the insurer’s past practices have created [such] an obligation.” Id.

The court held that the “ability to determine Mrs. Skelton’s eligibility for supplemental life insurance made Reliance a fiduciary for Skelton’s application process.” Reliance argued that while it had fiduciary duties related to eligibility and making claims decisions, those duties did not extend to enrollment. But because the policy language provided that enrollment occurred automatically as a result of Reliance’s eligibility decision, Reliance was therefore Mrs. Skelton’s fiduciary, as it essentially determined enrollment. The “plan documents and the insurer’s acts determine whether it is a fiduciary for the relevant function.” See Kerns, 992 F.2d at 217. Thus, as the entity that determined eligibility and conducted enrollment, Reliance was Skelton’s fiduciary.

The court further held that Reliance breached its fiduciary duty by failing to maintain an effective enrollment system. The court held that a reasonably prudent insurer would use a system that avoids the employer and the insurer having different lists of eligible, enrolled participants, and that Reliance used an insufficient, haphazard system. Reliance sent Davidson monthly status reports listing pending applications, but the reports did not include employees who had not submitted EOI, which resulted in a “ships passing in the night” situation between Reliance and Davidson as to who was eligible for coverage.

With respect to Reliance Standard’s argument that it did not communicate with the employer about enrollment in the ERISA plan, the court rejected it, explaining:

Reliance cannot insulate itself by failing to communicate with Davidson about enrollment—which Reliance controlled—while having Davidson remit ill-gotten premiums. ERISA seeks “to protect … the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries” and to “increase the likelihood that [they] receive their full benefits.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001(b), 1001b(c)(3). This Circuit has emphasized that allowing plaintiffs to seek full recovery for breach of fiduciary duty “is so important” because this eliminates the “‘perverse incentive[ ]’” for fiduciaries to “‘enjoy essentially risk-free windfall profits from employees who paid premiums on non-existent benefits but who never filed a claim for those benefits.’” Silva, 762 F.3d at 725, (quoting McCravy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 176, 183 (4th Cir. 2012)). Allowing an insurer to use “a compartmentalized system to escape responsibility” would undermine ERISA’s purposes. See Salyers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 871 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted).

Indeed, allowing a fiduciary to escape liability because it designed an enrollment system that ensured it would not know it was collecting “premiums on non-existent benefits” would endorse willful blindness—and the exact “perverse incentive” this Circuit has decried. See generally Patterson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 1150 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“Reliance Standard did not conduct any such investigation and only investigated the eligibility of Ms. Dietrich for *979 supplemental life insurance coverage after her death.”); Cho v. First Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 852 Fed. Appx. 304, 305 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding Reliance liable where employer erroneously collected premiums from ineligible person for over a year despite unsubmitted EOI); cf. Chao v. Merino, 452 F.3d 174, 182 (2d Cir. 2006) (stating, in ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty case, that under the duty of prudence, “If a fiduciary was aware of a risk to the fund, he may be held liable for failing to investigate fully the means of protecting the fund from that risk”).

Indeed, allowing a fiduciary to escape liability because it designed an enrollment system that ensured it would not know it was collecting “premiums on non-existent benefits” would endorse willful blindness—and the exact “perverse incentive” this Circuit has decried. See generally Patterson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 1150 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“Reliance Standard did not conduct any such investigation and only investigated the eligibility of Ms. Dietrich for *979 supplemental life insurance coverage after her death.”); Cho v. First Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 852 Fed. Appx. 304, 305 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding Reliance liable where employer erroneously collected premiums from ineligible person for over a year despite unsubmitted EOI); cf. Chao v. Merino, 452 F.3d 174, 182 (2d Cir. 2006) (stating, in ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty case, that under the duty of prudence, “If a fiduciary was aware of a risk to the fund, he may be held liable for failing to investigate fully the means of protecting the fund from that risk”).

Skelton, 33 F.4th at 978–79. The court additionally held that Reliance breached its fiduciary duty by accepting Skelton’s premiums without providing coverage. “ERISA fiduciaries must comply with the common law duty of loyalty, which includes the obligation to deal fairly and honestly with all plan members.” Shea v. Esensten, 107 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1997). This includes the duty to not profit at the beneficiary’s expense.

Reliance argued that because it received all of the premiums from Davidson, it had no way of knowing whether Mrs. Skelton’s payments were made, but it presented no evidence that it did not receive payment for Mrs. Skelton’s life insurance policy from Davidson. The court thus held that Reliance breached its fiduciary duty to Mrs. Skelton by receiving her premiums without giving her a corresponding benefit of coverage, while serving as a fiduciary for her eligibility and enrollment, and thus profited at her expense by avoiding any financial risk of having to pay benefits for her.

Notably, the court did not hold that Reliance became a fiduciary merely by receiving premiums from an ineligible employee. The court found that Reliance told Mrs. Skelton that she would not pay premiums until it approved her application, then it took her premiums without approving her application, thus profiting on its broken promise. This act of misleading Mrs. Skelton (by causing her to believe that if she was paying premiums, she was covered for the supplemental coverage), then profiting off of her premiums without approving her application, was Reliance’s breach of its fiduciary duty.

The Skelton court’s decision demonstrates that an insurer can be held liable for a breach of fiduciary duty even where it does not have actual knowledge that a participant is paying premiums. Because a reasonably prudent insurer would have facilitated a system that reliably informed Davidson as to which participants’ premiums were being paid and which participants were required to provide EOI, Reliance breached its duty. The Skelton court’s holding provides a blueprint of recourse for participants whose insurers have breached such fiduciary duties.

If you or someone you know has experienced the same or similar treatment from an insurer or employer, you may be able to hold them accountable. McKennon Law Group PC is highly experienced in handling denied ERISA claims, including those involving the insurer’s breach of fiduciary duty. Contact McKennon Law Group today for a free consultation.

Life insurance exists to protect your loved ones after you pass away. If anyone in your family relies on you for financial help and protection, you will need a way to provide for them after you pass away, or in the event that you pass away suddenly. For example, parents of young children should file life insurance policies to ensure that their children can receive funds if they were to pass away, especially in a sudden or unexpected way,

Life insurance benefits should be paid after the insured has passed away and, of course, after the proposed beneficiary has properly filed a claim with the life insurance company. The beneficiary will then need to submit a copy of the death certificate to their insurance company, as well as any other supporting documentation that provides insight into the deceased’s passing.

Generally speaking, the faster you submit the correct paperwork, the laws that govern your claim and the insurance company’s processing time are all factors that will tie into how long it takes to process your life insurance claim and receive your check. In most cases life insurance companies are required to pay out claims within thirty to sixty days after they receive the documentation from you. So, the faster you provide them with information, the faster they should be able to provide you with your payout.

All life insurance companies are required to operate in good faith, meaning they owe you a duty of care and are legally required to not delay in paying out claims for no reason at all. Contact a California life insurance lawyer if you need help navigating your life insurance policy, or you feel that your claim is taking too long to process and pay out.

Why Is It Taking So Long To Receive My Life Insurance Money?

First, as mentioned earlier, the faster you submit important documentation, the faster you will likely receive your claim. But if you promptly submitted your information and it’s still taking awhile, there are other factors that could be to blame.

Some life insurance policies have a two-year contestability clause laid out in the contract. If the death in question happened within the first two years of the policy being filed, the life insurance company withholds the right to fully investigate the claim, in order to ensure that no mistakes or misrepresentations were made on the application for life insurance. The life insurance company also has the right to review the original application and the insured’s medical records to determine whether the insured provided false or incomplete information. If the insured person did not provide material information on the application, the company might delay or deny paying the claim based on material misrepresentation. Investigating such claims may take up to a year or even longer.

However, it’s important to remember that if you have held the life insurance policy for longer than two years, it’s quite likely that the life insurance company will opt to not investigate your claim, unless there are questionable or suspicious circumstances regarding the person’s death.

Sometimes, life insurance companies simply have a backlog. If they are short staffed or under staffed, or have a busier schedule than normal, this could impact how long it takes to process your claim. There are a multitude of reasons why processing your life insurance claim could be delayed. This is one of the many reasons it is crucial to work with a lawyer who understands your side of the story, and has extensive experience working with people in situations just like yours. It can seem hard, even impossible to stand up to insurance companies, but with the help of a California life insurance lawyer, it is possible.

Schedule A Free Consultation With A California Life Insurance Lawyer Today

All life insurance companies are required to operate in good faith. This means, they owe you a duty of care and are required by state and federal law to process claims and pay them out as promptly as possible. But, unfortunately, we know by now this isn’t always the case. At McKennon Law Group PC, we offer a free consultation for any life insurance beneficiary who is experiencing a delayed claim or is unsure when their life insurance money will be processed and paid out.

Schedule a free, no obligation consultation with a California life insurance lawyer as soon as possible. Our team of attorneys will help you fight back against big insurance companies, stand up for yourself and your loved ones, and get the money you deserve from your claim. Our team is here to help.

Life insurance policies are a smart way of financially protecting your loved ones in the future. If anyone in your family relies on your income and financial support, and will experience hardship if this financial support no longer exists, life insurance will pay out a sum of money to these dependents once you’ve passed away. The insurer should pay out the full amount in the policy after the insured dies. But, sadly, this isn’t always the case.

Big life insurance companies have a bottom line, and are always trying to save money. Sometimes, these big life insurance companies will deny reasonable claims for simply no reason at all. When this happens, beneficiaries of the deceased may experience serious financial hardship without the life insurance money that was intended to protect them.

Read on to learn what you can do if your life insurance claim was denied by the insurance company. We’ll break down what you can do and, if you have any questions about life insurance policies or about filing an appeal for a denied claim, contact us for a free consultation regarding your situation.

How Do I Know My Life Insurance Claim Was Denied?

You will be contacted by the life insurance company in order to tell you that your life insurance claim has been denied. The insurance company sends the proposed beneficiary a formal letter by mail, which will break down the reasons why the life insurance claim was denied. In the letter, the insurance company will typically take this time to quote specific standards and provisions from the policy that apply to your specific case, listing documents that they reviewed and evidence they leveraged in order to make the decision to deny your claim.

In some random cases, a beneficiary’s claim may be denied via a phone call. If you have had your life insurance claim denied in a phone call, you have every right to contact your life insurance company and request a formal denial letter in writing. It will be helpful to have this document on hand. A denial letter not only outlines important information that is required to fight back against the denied claim, but it also demonstrates exactly what day the life insurance company decided to deny your claim, and helps you outline a timeline for appealing the claim or deciding to file a lawsuit.

The denial letter that a beneficiary receives from the insurance company will be a crucial part of the appeal procedure, so be sure to have a physical copy for your records. With this information, a skilled California life insurance lawyer can outline a procedure for filing an appeal.

Why Did My Life Insurance Claim Get Denied In California?

There are a multitude of reasons why a life insurance claim can get denied in California. The following is a list of just a few examples, as there are many more reasons:

Policy was canceled or the life insurance lapsed because of a missed payment
Failure to reinstate the policy after a lapse or missed payment
Failure to provide correct or accurate information on life insurance application
The deceased passed away due to alcohol or drug use, including prescription drug misuse
The deceased passed away due to a sickness or treatment that is excluded from the policy
Failure to disclose a pre-existing medical condition
Failure to disclose frequency of medical check ups
Misrepresentation of the deceased’s weight, age or income
Denial under the two-year life insurance contestability clause
The deceased passed away via suicide
The deceased passed away in a foreign country
And much more

When filing for any kind of insurance, always be sure that you consult with a lawyer in order to know what you’re signing up for, and what is required of you to ensure you receive the full scope of benefits that you are requesting.

How Does A Lawyer Help Me File An Appeal For A Denied Life Insurance Claim?

First, your lawyer will help you contact the insurance company to find out why exactly the claim was denied. Sometimes, denial letters are hard to decipher, so we will help you figure out exactly what you need to do to proceed. Your insurance company will let you know if your policy allows you to file an appeal, and will let you know which documentation you need to do so. This may include medical records, reports of an autopsy, or receipts of your insurance payment. Your lawyer can help you collect all of this.

Our attorneys handle denied life insurance claims all the time. We will take the time to listen to your fears and concerns and, in a free consultation, will provide you with all of the resources you need to get help. To successfully file an administrative appeal for a denied life insurance claim, your California life insurance attorney will create and present a strong convincing argument that is based upon the facts of the case, which will be supported by the state and federal laws that govern it.