Explaining the Incontestability Clause
How do insurance agents and companies handle untruths on behalf of their clients? The incontestability clause was originally designed to manage situations wherein an applicant fails to mention something that is relevant to a life insurance policy and how it is approved and issued. In the case of these omissions, the clause can be used to contest payout of the policy if the applicant dies within two or three years of the issuance.
If a smoker, for example, dies outside of the contestability period and is denied a death claim for misrepresenting his smoker status - generally the insurance company cannot void the contract after the contestability period ends.
Our forum members discussed this issue, and noted that if caught within two years of the policy issue, a revocation of the policy might occur. After two years, the death benefit would be paid in full, unless the state courts had allowed another way to rescind the policy. But whether the insurance company includes a fraud provision or not, the state does not provide an escape clause in the case of fraud against an insurance company.
One agent informed us that “The clause was established for the common good of the consumer. They wanted the consumer to be comfortable that the insurance company would pay out, so the states demanded the contestability provision. That way, insurance companies could not investigate death claims for an infinite amount of time.”
- Insurtech Updates: Launches, expansions, partnerships and more
- NAIFA launches LACP designation as new ‘gold standard’ for life and annuity professionals
- Partial Fiduciary Rule implementation starts Friday – with no enforcement
- More than 8 in 10 advisors now use social media for marketing, researching prospects and building relationships
- Resources being rolled out to help with partial Fiduciary Rule compliance
- Best-ever start to a year for indexed life sales, new report says
- Diversity, innovation top agenda at Women in Insurance Global Conference
- Millennials pose greater auto risk than previous generations at same age, but appear worth it in long run