Can a Life Insurance Company Deny a Claim Based on Vague “Inherently Dangerous Activity” Language?
Life insurance companies sometimes deny valid claims using ambiguous contract provisions, including exclusions for “inherently dangerous activities.” These denials often fail under legal scrutiny—especially when policy language is vague or inconsistently applied. If a life insurance company has denied your claim on questionable grounds, it is possible to fight back and win. An experienced life insurance attorney can expose the insurer’s inconsistency and compel payment of full benefits.
At our law firm, we routinely overturn wrongful life insurance claim denials—especially those based on flimsy or contradictory justifications. We’ve seen insurers argue everything from far-fetched technicalities to outright misinterpretations of their own policies. The truth is, the more absurd their reasoning, the more opportunities we have to challenge it in court and win. One category of denial that we’ve had notable success in defeating is the so-called “inherently dangerous activity exclusion.” While some insurers attempt to use this clause to block payouts, courts generally require clarity and consistency. When insurers fail to define the term clearly—or apply it arbitrarily—we use that against them.
Policies issued by reputable insurance companies often define what qualifies as “inherently dangerous,” typically listing high-risk activities such as skydiving, scuba diving, or mountaineering. These are clearly understood to involve extraordinary danger. But some insurance companies leave this phrase vague on purpose, intending to use it as a catch-all excuse to deny claims later. That’s where our legal expertise comes in. If an insurer uses this exclusion selectively or inconsistently, we can often show the court how their actions are legally indefensible.
One of the most eye-opening cases we handled involved a boating accident—a tragic yet straightforward incident that the insurance company twisted into a reason to deny benefits.
The Case of Joel: A Retired Admiral and a Life Insurance Dispute
Joel, a 58-year-old retired Navy admiral, had maintained a $1.75 million life insurance policy for decades. He named his wife, Angela, as the sole beneficiary. Joel was active, healthy, and loved spending summers on the lake with his family, especially boating and water skiing. It was a tradition they enjoyed every year without issue.
Tragically, during one of their outings, Joel was thrown from the boat after it hit a large wake. The impact caused fatal injuries. Authorities arrived quickly, conducted a full investigation, and ruled the death an accident with no signs of foul play or negligence. By all accounts, it was a devastating but unforeseeable event.
Angela submitted a claim shortly after the funeral, fully expecting the life insurance benefits to be paid without incident. She submitted the required documents, including Joel’s death certificate and police reports. But within a week, she received a denial letter citing the “inherently dangerous activity exclusion.” The insurer claimed that because Joel died while boating—something they suddenly considered hazardous—they had no obligation to pay the benefit.
Angela was stunned. She and her family had enjoyed boating for decades without a single serious incident. To call it “inherently dangerous” seemed like a massive stretch. She suspected something was off and wisely contacted a life insurance attorney.
How Legal Strategy Exposed the Insurer’s Hypocrisy
When Angela’s attorney reviewed the policy and the denial letter, he immediately recognized the insurance company’s tactic. Even more importantly, he had handled numerous prior cases involving the same insurer. One recent case stood out—a young man had died while texting and driving. The insurance company did not consider that an “inherently dangerous” activity, even though it causes thousands of deaths annually.
To make the insurer’s position appear as arbitrary as it truly was, the attorney gathered federal statistics. He showed that boating, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, results in approximately 35 fatalities per year. Meanwhile, distracted driving—such as texting—contributes to over 3,000 deaths annually. If the insurer didn’t apply the exclusion for texting and driving, how could it reasonably apply it for boating?
That inconsistency proved fatal to the insurer’s case. When Angela’s attorney presented these facts in court, the judge ruled in her favor. The court determined that the insurer acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by applying the exclusion without a clear or consistent standard. Angela was awarded the full policy benefit, with interest.
Why Vague Life Insurance Exclusions Are Legally Dangerous—for Insurers
This case illustrates how vague language in a policy can backfire on the insurer, especially when they try to apply it selectively. In most states, courts will not uphold exclusions that are not clearly defined. Even when defined, exclusions must be applied in a consistent, reasonable manner. When insurers deviate from that standard—denying claims based on flawed logic or cherry-picked situations—they can be held accountable.
In addition, contract law favors the policyholder in cases of ambiguity. Legal doctrine generally requires courts to interpret vague insurance terms against the party that drafted them—i.e., the insurer. This principle, known as “contra proferentem,” is especially powerful in cases where exclusions are used to justify nonpayment.
Don't Let a Life Insurance Company Use Vague Language Against You
If you’ve received a life insurance denial citing an “inherently dangerous activity,” it’s critical to consult an attorney who handles these types of disputes regularly. Many beneficiaries don’t realize how often these denials are flawed—and how frequently they can be overturned. Insurance companies count on people not fighting back. But with the right legal approach, you can often secure the benefits your loved one intended for you.
At our firm, we investigate the denial thoroughly, analyze how similar claims have been handled by the insurer in the past, and prepare a case that forces the insurance company to explain its actions under scrutiny. If they can’t provide a consistent, policy-based rationale for the denial, they risk losing in court.
You don’t have to accept a denial that doesn’t make sense. Contact us today for a free consultation. We may be able to help you recover the full benefit—and hold the insurance company accountable.