Life Insurance Lawyer Alaska

Our Alaska life insurance lawyers are here to help. We serve all states. Free consultation. No fee unless settlement.

2025 Alaska Denied Life Insurance Claims

  • Northwestern Mutual delayed claim $65,000.00
  • Liberty National COVID-19 denial $115,000.00
  • OneAmerica coronavirus wouldn't pay $50,000.00
  • Accidental Death & Dismemberment $704,000.00
  • Farmers Life dispute beneficiaries $57,000.00
  • Bright house Financial medical record $83,000.00
  • Denied SGLI claim beneficiary change $401,200.00
  • RiverSource boat accident alcohol $59,000.00
  • FEGLI claim denial resolved $402,000.00
  • Delta Life autoerotic asphyxiation $309,000.00
  • Centennial Life poisoning death $279,000.00
  • American United denial claim $102,000.00
  • Ladder cancer in medical records $38,000.00
  • Monarch prescription drugs in system $55,000.00
  • Ethos change of beneficiary issue $50,000.00
  • Principal Life interpleader lawsuit $92.000.00
  • SGLI dispute we won quickly$400,000.00
  • Lincoln Financial Life exclusion $21,000.00
  • Colonial Penn divorce change $70,000.00
  • Denied AD&D claim Alaska won $343,000.00
  • United Republic Life felony exclusion $291,400.00
  • Columbian Mutual Life COVID denial $44,000.00
  • Universe Life sickness exclusion health $39,000.00
  • Protective Life beneficiary dispute $303,000.00
  • SGLI claim appeal contesting beneficiary $400,000.00
  • Ketchikan dangerous activity exclusion $752,000.00
  • State Farm alleged misrepresentation $200,000.00
  • Denied FEGLI claim resolved by us $281,000.00
  • Banner Life alcohol exclusion resolved $109,000.00
  • Fairbanks bad faith life claim plaintiff $877,000.00
  • Colonial Life ex-spouse dispute with spouse $240,000.00
  • TSGLI appeal our client was successful
  • Alaska denied life insurance claim $300,000.00
  • Universal Life prescription drug exclusion $150,000.00
  • Denied SGLI claim that was resolved $407,200.00
  • AAA nonpayment of premium problem $113,000.00
  • USAA bad faith denial of life benefits $397,000.00
  • Principal Life felony exclusion resolved $204,000.00
  • Allstate Life Insurance medical record $103,000.00
  • FEGLI appeal our plaintiff prevailed $110,000.00
  • Mutual of Omaha Life suicide exclusion $175,000.00
  • Freedom Life autoerotic asphyxiation death $100,000.00
  • Anchorage resolution of life death benefits $240,000.00
  • Metropolitan Life misrepresentation application $200,000.00
  • Alaska divorce and life insurance claim $632,000.00
  • USAA Life accidental death resolved for client $100,000.00
  • Denied AD&D claim from a fall that we won $529,000.00
  • Denied life insurance claim Alaska $921,400.00
  • Alaska ERISA life insurance claim $269,000.00
  • Denied Veterans Life claim resolved $402,800.00
  • Sitka illegal activity exclusion success $428,000.00
  • American General Life beneficiary dispute $201,000.00
  • Jumeau invalid beneficiary designation $946,000.00
  • Alaska bad faith life insurance claim $739,000.00
  • John Hancock Life foreign death resolved $106,500.00
  • American Life alcohol exclusion won $126,000.00

Life insurance claims are designed to provide financial security for families following the loss of a loved one, but for many beneficiaries in Alaska, these claims can be denied, leading to frustration and confusion. Alaska residents, much like those in other states, may face obstacles when it comes to collecting life insurance benefits. Despite paying premiums and trusting that their insurance company will follow through in the event of death, the reality for some policyholders is a long and difficult battle to receive a payout. Companies such as American General, AARP, and MetLife, among many others, are not immune to accusations of unfairly denying claims, and Alaskan families have found themselves struggling to receive the benefits they believe they are entitled to. The reasons behind these denials are varied and often frustrating, ranging from issues related to policy exclusions and fine print to administrative errors and complex application processes.

One of the primary reasons for life insurance claims being denied in Alaska is the misrepresentation or omission of information on the insurance application. Insurers like Banner, MetLife, and Lincoln Heritage closely scrutinize an applicant's medical history when processing claims. If a beneficiary is claiming a death benefit and the insurer uncovers discrepancies in the original application, such as undisclosed health conditions or risky behaviors, it can lead to a denial. Even if these misrepresentations are unintentional, life insurance companies often rely on them as grounds to contest the claim. In Alaska, where many residents are engaged in outdoor activities and remote living conditions, the stakes are even higher for individuals to fully disclose any health issues or potential risks, as failure to do so could result in the forfeiture of their life insurance benefits. Companies like Reliance Standard and Midland National, which have faced scrutiny for their rigorous claim investigations, might use any inconsistencies or gaps in the application as justification to deny claims.

The complexities of life insurance policies can also be a significant factor contributing to claim denials in Alaska. Life insurance companies such as Hartford Life, Jackson Life, and Foresters issue policies with various clauses, terms, and exclusions that are not always easily understood by the average consumer. This becomes particularly problematic in Alaska, where residents may face unique circumstances, such as deaths occurring in remote locations or involving high-risk outdoor activities like hunting or fishing. Many life insurance policies have specific exclusions for deaths resulting from hazardous activities or natural disasters, and if the cause of death falls into one of these excluded categories, the claim may be denied. The lack of clarity regarding what constitutes an excluded activity can be frustrating for beneficiaries, especially when they believe the policy should cover the death in question. For instance, companies like Lumico and USAA may argue that an accident that occurred during a recreational activity falls outside the scope of the policy, even if the insured person never had a history of risky behavior.

A particularly contentious issue when it comes to life insurance claims in Alaska involves deaths caused by suicide, particularly if the death occurs within the policy's contestability period. Many life insurance policies contain a two-year contestability clause, during which time the insurer can investigate the death and determine whether any misrepresentation or fraud occurred on the part of the insured. Companies like Symetra and Transamerica may invoke this clause if the insured person dies within the first two years of the policy, especially if there is any indication that the death could have been self-inflicted. While suicide exclusions are common in life insurance contracts, the ambiguity surrounding how these clauses are applied can lead to disputes, with some insurers such as VOYA and AAA opting to deny claims for suicide outright, while others may try to reduce the payout depending on the circumstances.

The process of filing a life insurance claim can be daunting, especially when there are delays, missing documentation, or claims that are contested on administrative grounds. Smaller life insurance companies, such as Ameritas, Globe, and Horace Mann, may be especially prone to denying claims on technicalities, such as incomplete forms or missing signatures. In Alaska, where access to resources may be limited, this can cause additional hardships for beneficiaries who are already struggling with the death of a loved one. Often, these technical issues are not the fault of the claimant, but life insurance companies like Columbian Mutual, Integrity, and Corebridge may still use them as an excuse to deny claims. Alaska’s remote communities may make it difficult for beneficiaries to get the necessary documents or communicate effectively with the insurance company, which can delay the process and increase the likelihood of a claim being denied.

Another obstacle that Alaska residents may face is the aggressive practices of certain life insurance companies like Mass Mutual, Pekin, and Prosperity, which have been known to deny claims or make the claims process unnecessarily difficult in order to reduce the financial risk to the insurer. Smaller life insurance companies sometimes focus on reducing payouts as much as possible, and this can result in denied claims or drawn-out appeals processes. For beneficiaries who are already under the emotional and financial stress of losing a loved one, this can add a layer of unnecessary difficulty to an already challenging time. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that many residents in Alaska may not fully understand the intricacies of their life insurance policies and may be taken by surprise when a claim is denied.

A particularly concerning trend in Alaska involves life insurance companies denying claims based on vague or broadly worded exclusions. Companies like Trustmark, Wells Fargo, and Anthem may attempt to invoke these exclusions, such as claiming that a death occurred due to an excluded cause (e.g., death during the course of a criminal act or death caused by a pre-existing condition) in order to avoid paying the claim. While these exclusions are generally listed in the policy, the language can often be confusing or unclear, which makes it difficult for beneficiaries to challenge the denial. When the insured person’s death is linked to a pre-existing condition that was not disclosed at the time of the application, companies like CMFG, Dearborn, and First Colony may cite that the policy is invalid, even if the condition had not been a factor in the cause of death.

The presence of a contestability clause, along with the potential for claims to be denied due to ambiguous language or undisclosed information, is often the reason that Alaska residents face obstacles when dealing with life insurance companies like Humana, Mutual Savings, and State Life. For those who do face a denial, it is important to understand that there are legal remedies available. Beneficiaries in Alaska can file a complaint with the Alaska Division of Insurance, which can investigate claims and help resolve disputes. In many cases, working with a legal expert specializing in life insurance law can provide additional support in challenging a denied claim. Legal professionals are well-versed in the complexities of life insurance contracts and can help ensure that beneficiaries receive the full benefits they are entitled to under the terms of the policy.

Life insurance companies such as TIAA, Alfa, and National Western may also contribute to the difficulty surrounding claims denials in Alaska. While they have extensive resources and offer a variety of policies, these companies may engage in practices that prioritize their financial interests over the rightful payouts to beneficiaries. Like other insurers, they may focus on administrative or technical issues as a reason for rejecting claims. In Alaska, where residents may face unique circumstances such as deaths occurring in remote areas, understanding how insurers like Assurant, Progressive, and Protective interpret policy exclusions and terms is essential for beneficiaries who hope to avoid the potential for claim denial.

In conclusion, life insurance claims denials in Alaska are a reality that many residents face when navigating the death of a loved one. Companies like Prudential, Sagicor, and Securian may reject claims for various reasons, including misrepresentation on the application, the use of broad exclusions, and technical issues. For Alaskans, it is crucial to understand their policy terms, be aware of potential exclusions, and seek legal guidance if a claim is denied. The process of fighting a life insurance claim denial can be long and challenging, but by understanding their rights and options, beneficiaries can pursue the benefits they are rightfully owed under the terms of the policy.

Questions about life insurance claims in alaska

What do I do if my life insurance claim in Alaska was denied?

You need a top Alaska life insurance lawyer to represent you.

What do I do If I was served with a life insurance interpleader lawsuit in Alaska?

You don't want to jeopardize your case, so you'll need a top Alaska life insurance attorney for representation.

What do I do if I have a life insurance beneficiary dispute in Alaska?

Our top Alaska life insurance law firm can represent you with respect to your beneficiary dispute.

Why would an accidental death & dismemberment life insurance claim in Alaska be denied?

An AD&D life insurance claim is typically denied either because the death was caused by a medical event not an accident, or that there was alcohol involved which is typically an exclusion in the policy.

Can policy lapse be a reason for a denied life insurance claim in Alaska?

Yes, but the lapse can be contested by our life insurance attorneys.

Is alleged misrepresentation on a life insurance application a reason for a denied life insurance claim in Alaska?

Yes, but our life law firm can dispute the misrepresentation.

Can an alcohol exclusion be a reason for a denied life insurance claim in Alaska?

Yes, but there are ways a life insurance lawyer can dispute this.

What do I do about a bad faith ERISA life insurance denial of death benefits in Alaska?

As you only have one appeal, best to have our lawyers resolve it.

Interpleader Lawyer Alaska

A life insurance interpleader is a legal process used to resolve disputes over the distribution of life insurance proceeds when multiple parties make conflicting claims to the benefits. It typically occurs when the policyholder dies, and there is uncertainty or disagreement about who should receive the payout.

Here's how a life insurance interpleader works:

  1. Death of the Policyholder: The process begins with the death of the insured individual, triggering the payment of the life insurance policy's death benefit.

  2. Conflicting Claims: If there are multiple beneficiaries listed on the policy, or if there are disputes over who is entitled to the proceeds, the insurance company may be unable to determine the rightful recipient(s) based on the information provided.

  3. Interpleader Action: In response to the conflicting claims, the insurance company may file a legal action called an interpleader in court. This action essentially asks the court to determine who among the claimants is entitled to receive the life insurance proceeds.

  4. Court Decision: Once the interpleader is filed, the court will hear arguments from all parties involved and review the evidence presented. The court will then make a decision regarding the rightful beneficiaries of the life insurance policy.

  5. Distribution of Proceeds: Once the court makes a decision, the life insurance proceeds will be distributed according to the court's ruling. This decision is legally binding and resolves the dispute.

Example:

Let's consider a scenario where a father named John passes away, leaving behind a life insurance policy with a significant death benefit. John had three children and his ex-wife, Mary, who is the mother of the children, but they divorced several years ago. The life insurance policy lists Mary as the primary beneficiary, but John never updated the policy after the divorce.

After John's death, his children and Mary both claim entitlement to the life insurance proceeds. The insurance company, unable to determine the rightful beneficiary, decides to file an interpleader action in court.

During the legal proceedings, the court examines the terms of the policy, the divorce agreement between John and Mary, and any other relevant evidence. After careful consideration, the court may rule that since John did not update the policy after the divorce, Mary remains the primary beneficiary.

As a result of the court's decision, Mary would receive the life insurance proceeds, and the children would not be entitled to any portion of the benefits. This ruling resolves the dispute and ensures that the life insurance proceeds are distributed according to the court's determination of the rightful beneficiary.

Alaska Life Insurance Law

Life insurance companies are in business for one reason and one reason only – to make money. To do this, they have to collect the greatest amount of premiums possible and deny payment on the maximum number of claims possible. It may not seem fair, but it is the simple math of how the industry works.

Sometimes, however, life insurance companies push the envelope too far. Such was the case recently when an insurer tried to rescind an insured’s policy right around the time of the insured’s death, based solely on the insured’s mental health conditions. Fortunately, the Federal Court system didn’t let the insurance company get away with that.

As lawyers specializing in the wrongful denial of life insurance claims, we try to stay abreast of all the legal developments that happen in our area of the law. Not only do we use those cases to help us form winning strategies for our clients, we also report on those cases here. The hope is that if you or a loved one has experienced a similar claim denial, you’ll feel emboldened to call us and to let us help you contest that claim denial.

With that, let’s turn to the facts of our case.

Doing the best they could

This case involves a married couple – Christina and Derek. Both individuals were in their mid-thirties and gainfully employed. Christina’s employer, a popular radio station, offered a generous benefits package that included a group life insurance policy for employees and their spouses.

When the life insurance plan was offered to them, Christina and Derek decided to take advantage of the offer. They applied for policies covering each of their lives, and naming each other as beneficiaries under the respective policies. Upon receiving the applications, the insurance company issued what they called “provisional policies.” These were policies that were intended to stay in place while the insurance company performed a thorough investigation into the couple’s medical background.

The provisional policies were issued on September 14, 2015. Christina paid all premiums due under the provisional policies through the month of December. On December 17, 2015, however, Christina was killed in a tragic car accident. As it turns out, that same day, the life insurance company was drafting a letter to Christina and Derek cancelling the provisional policies. The letter explained that the insurer was doing this on the grounds that the medical background investigation revealed both Christina and Derek suffered from moderate depression and borderline personality disorder.

It was true that Christina and Derek had both received these diagnoses. Nonetheless, they had both been on medication for years, were both receiving regular psychotherapy, and were generally living very healthy lives at the time of Christina’s death. In fact, therapists would later testify that they had never seen a couple work so hard to try to achieve true mental health.

Importantly, the December 17 letter from the insurance company to Christina and Derek was not mailed on that date. In fact, before the letter was ever placed in the mail, the insurer received Derek’s notice of claim with respect to Christina’s death. At the time, Derek had no reason to believe his claim would be denied.

The harsh denial letter

Almost contemporaneously, Derek received two letters: (1) a letter alerting him that the insurance company was denying his claim for death benefits under Christina’s policy; (2) a letter informing him that the provisional policies were being rescinded due to the couple’s history of mental illness.

While Derek was understandably overcome with grief, he also couldn’t believe the contents of the two letters. If he and his wife hadn’t worked so hard to overcome their mental health challenges, perhaps the letters might have made sense. But they were the couple who was doing the hard work, they were making life work for them, they were overcoming every challenge. He simply didn’t understand.

Fortunately, Derek did a very wise thing in that moment. He sought the advice of an attorney who specializes in the wrongful denial of life insurance claims. The attorney reviewed all of the files and instantly recognized that the insurance company’s actions smacked of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). With Derek’s approval, he filed a lawsuit against the insurer for discrimination under the ADA, as well as breach of contract under the provisional policy.

After a long, hard-fought battle, Derek finally prevailed against the insurance company. Specifically, the court found that the insurer’s investigation of Derek & Christina’s medical background had ignored the positive prognoses given by their therapists. To the contrary, the insurance had simply seen the diagnoses of depression and borderline personality disorder and made a rush to judgment. Based on these facts, the court found the insurer: (1) should not have rescinded the provisional policy; and (2) should have paid Derek the full death benefit his wife had intended for him. The court also found the insurance company had illegally discriminated against Derek and Christina under the ADA.

As attorneys who practice exclusively in the area of life insurance claim denials, we’re not shocked by the facts of this case, nor of its outcome. We are fully aware that insurance companies make the most money when they deny the most claims. We’re also aware that those companies will push the bounds of appropriateness in an effort to exploit grieving beneficiaries like Derek.

Our sole and exclusive focus is to help wronged beneficiaries recover the death benefits their loved ones intended for them. If you have received a claim denial based on facts similar to this case – or for any reason at all – please call us. We battle life insurance companies all the time. We know their tricks and games and we successfully confront them in court on a regular basis.

Alaska Beneficiary Disputes / Alaska Interpleader Lawsuits

Our top life insurance lawyers handle all beneficiary disputes and interpleader lawsuits.