Denied Life Insurance Claims Involving Reliance Standard: Real Cases and Legal Outcomes
At our life insurance law firm, we frequently represent clients in disputes with major insurers like Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Many of these cases involve denied death benefits based on exclusion clauses, contestability windows, policy lapse, or conflicting beneficiary claims. Below are real-world examples of Reliance Standard life insurance claim denials—each illustrating how courts have ruled in these cases and what beneficiaries can expect when challenging similar denials.
Foster v. Reliance Standard: Suicide Exclusion Upheld
A widow sued Reliance after it denied benefits under her husband’s policy, citing the suicide exclusion. The policy excluded deaths by suicide within two years of issuance. The plaintiff argued the death was accidental, but the court ruled that she failed to prove intent was lacking, and summary judgment was granted to Reliance. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reinforcing how suicide exclusions are enforceable if clearly stated and within the contestability period.
Garcia v. Reliance Standard: Policy Lapsed for Non-Payment
After his father’s death, the plaintiff was denied benefits due to a lapsed policy. Reliance asserted that premiums were not paid and proper lapse notice had been issued. The court agreed and granted summary judgment, finding that Reliance followed procedural requirements. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, deferring to the insurer’s interpretation of policy terms and factual timeline.
Harris v. Reliance Standard: Contestability Clause Applied
A woman was denied benefits after her husband’s death when Reliance invoked the two-year contestability clause, claiming the husband was ineligible due to application misstatements. The court held that Reliance had sufficient evidence to challenge coverage, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the insurer acted in good faith and within the policy’s terms.
Johnson v. Reliance Standard: Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion Enforced
A widow challenged Reliance’s denial based on a pre-existing condition exclusion. The insurer argued that her husband died within a year of the policy’s start date and that the cause of death was related to a known health issue. The court found the exclusion valid, and the Eighth Circuit upheld the ruling. Courts typically enforce pre-existing condition clauses when the timeline and medical evidence are clear.
Kirkpatrick v. Reliance Standard: Change of Beneficiary Dispute
A woman sued after Reliance denied her claim, stating that there was no valid change of beneficiary form on file. The policy required a written, signed form, which the plaintiff could not provide. The court ruled for Reliance, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the insurer acted in accordance with explicit policy provisions and was not arbitrary in denying the benefit.
Lopez v. Reliance Standard: Interpleader Filed in Good Faith
After a man died, multiple individuals claimed to be the rightful beneficiary of his policy. Reliance filed an interpleader action, placing the funds in the court’s hands and allowing the parties to resolve the dispute. The plaintiff sued, alleging bad faith. The court rejected the claim, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Reliance acted appropriately by remaining neutral and avoiding improper payouts.
Morgan v. Reliance Standard: Missed Conversion Window After Job Loss
A widow was denied life insurance benefits after her husband died post-employment. The policy allowed for conversion from group to individual coverage within 31 days of job termination, which the deceased did not act upon. The court ruled in Reliance’s favor, and the Seventh Circuit upheld the judgment. Courts consistently enforce strict conversion deadlines, even when beneficiaries are unaware of them.
Nguyen v. Reliance Standard: Accidental Death Rider Dispute
After a father died unexpectedly, his son claimed an accidental death benefit in addition to the base policy amount. Reliance denied the additional benefit, arguing the death was not accidental. The court agreed, and the First Circuit affirmed, finding the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving accident as the cause of death under the rider’s terms.
Zamora v. Reliance Standard: War Risk Exclusion Enforced
A widow sued Reliance after her husband died while serving in Iraq. The insurer denied the claim under the war risk exclusion, which barred benefits for deaths related to acts of war. The court upheld the denial, and the Second Circuit affirmed, deferring to Reliance’s application of policy language and evidence that the death was linked to military activity.
What These Reliance Standard Denial Cases Reveal
Reliance Standard frequently defends claim denials using the following justifications:
Suicide and contestability clauses within the policy’s initial two years
Lapsed policies due to non-payment or failure to convert from group to individual coverage
Exclusion clauses for pre-existing conditions, war-related deaths, or accidental death riders
Beneficiary disputes resolved via interpleader actions
Failure to produce required forms, like change-of-beneficiary documentation
In nearly all of these cases, courts ruled in favor of Reliance when it followed the policy language and procedures. However, these rulings often hinge on strict compliance with technical policy terms, and courts have occasionally found factual issues that warrant further litigation. Beneficiaries with strong legal representation can challenge these denials more effectively, especially when evidence is incomplete, exclusions are unclear, or notice was deficient.
How Our Firm Helps with Reliance Standard Life Insurance Denials
We represent clients across the country whose claims have been denied by Reliance Standard. Our attorneys:
Investigate whether the policy exclusions or contestability clauses were misapplied
Determine if policyholders received proper lapse or conversion notices
Review beneficiary change documentation and ERISA implications in employer-sponsored plans
Challenge bad faith actions, including selective enforcement of exclusions or insufficient investigations
FAQ
Can Reliance Standard deny a claim based on suicide within two years?
Yes, if the policy contains a suicide exclusion clause and the death occurs within the first two years. After two years, suicide is generally covered.
What if the policyholder didn’t know they needed to convert their coverage?
Unfortunately, courts typically enforce conversion deadlines strictly. However, we investigate whether proper notice was given and whether the insurer waived any rights through its conduct.
Are interpleader actions the same as denials?
No. In an interpleader, the insurer deposits funds with the court when multiple beneficiaries claim the same benefit. It protects the insurer from double liability but still requires the true beneficiary to fight for the proceeds.
What can I do if my Reliance Standard claim is denied?
You can appeal the decision internally or file a lawsuit if necessary. Our attorneys will assess the policy language, cause of death, and denial reasoning to advise on the strongest course of action.