Denied Monumental Life Insurance Claims: Real Cases and How Our Legal Team Helps Beneficiaries Fight Back
At our life insurance law firm, we handle cases involving wrongful claim denials by major insurers, including Monumental Life Insurance Company. Beneficiaries are often shocked when they receive a denial letter after losing a loved one—especially when the policy appears to provide clear coverage. Unfortunately, Monumental has denied numerous accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) claims by invoking narrowly interpreted exclusion clauses. Below are real-life cases where Monumental’s denials were challenged in court. Some were dismissed, but many were resolved in favor of the beneficiaries—either through confidential settlements or litigation victories.
Accidental Fall Death Denied—Settled Out of Court
In 2017, a woman sued Monumental Life after the insurer denied her claim for accidental death benefits following her husband’s fatal fall. Monumental claimed the fall was related to a pre-existing condition and invoked a sickness or disease exclusion. The plaintiff argued that her husband’s death was purely accidental and that the insurer was acting in bad faith. The case was resolved confidentially through an out-of-court settlement.
Prescription Overdose Death Denied—Case Dismissed
In 2018, Monumental Life denied a man’s claim after his wife died of a drug overdose. The insurer pointed to an exclusion for voluntary ingestion of drugs, even though the drug was prescribed. The man argued that the death was accidental, not intentional. The court sided with Monumental, ruling that the exclusion was clear and enforceable, and the case was dismissed. This case highlights how courts often uphold drug-related exclusions—even when prescriptions are involved.
Shooting Death Denied as ‘Act of War’—Settled Confidentially
In 2019, a mother filed a lawsuit after her son was fatally shot. Monumental denied the claim under a war or act of war exclusion, despite the shooting being a random act of violence. The plaintiff accused the insurer of bad faith and misapplying the exclusion. The case did not proceed to trial and was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. This dispute shows how vague or inappropriate use of exclusions can be challenged effectively.
Heart Attack Exclusion Enforced—Claim Dismissed
A 2020 case involved a denied claim following a fatal heart attack. The insured’s son argued the death was sudden and accidental. Monumental invoked the bodily or mental infirmity exclusion, stating that the death was caused by heart disease. The court upheld the exclusion and dismissed the lawsuit. This case illustrates how insurers may rely on longstanding health conditions to deny coverage—even in sudden deaths.
Fatal Car Accident and DUI Exclusion—Settled Out of Court
In 2021, a widow filed suit after Monumental denied her claim when her husband died in a car crash. Monumental cited a DUI exclusion, even though the woman alleged that another driver caused the accident. She maintained her husband’s impairment was not the proximate cause of death. The parties reached a confidential settlement, resolving the case without a trial.
Stroke Death and Medical Procedure Exclusion—Settled
In 2022, a man challenged Monumental’s denial of a claim after his wife died of a stroke during treatment. The insurer invoked a medical or surgical treatment exclusion, arguing her death was not truly accidental. The plaintiff insisted her death resulted from an unforeseeable complication. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, showing that even medical-related exclusions can be contested successfully.
Drowning Death Denied Under Water Activity Exclusion—Pending
In 2023, a woman brought legal action after her daughter died from drowning. Monumental denied the claim under an exclusion for water-related activity or sport. The mother argued the drowning was accidental and unrelated to any hazardous activity. This case challenges the scope and fairness of water-related exclusions and underscores how aggressive interpretation of policy language can be litigated.
What These Monumental Life Insurance Cases Reveal
Monumental Life Insurance has repeatedly denied AD&D claims by citing exclusion clauses that often leave room for legal interpretation. Common denial reasons include:
Deaths linked to medical conditions, even if the trigger event was external
Overdoses, regardless of whether the drugs were prescribed
Shooting deaths, sometimes mischaracterized as acts of war
Car accidents involving alleged intoxication, even if the insured wasn’t at fault
Drownings or water-related deaths denied under broadly worded exclusions
Deaths during or after medical procedures, labeled as treatment-related
These cases show that policy language often requires legal analysis, and that insurers’ interpretations can be challenged—sometimes successfully, through settlement or court rulings.
Our Law Firm Helps Families Fight Monumental Life Claim Denials
If Monumental Life Insurance has denied your accidental death claim, we’re ready to help. Our team will review your denial letter, the policy, and any related evidence to determine your legal options. We challenge bad faith practices and fight for full payouts when exclusions are unfairly applied or when insurers act unreasonably.
FAQ
Can Monumental deny a claim for a fall if the insured had a pre-existing condition?
They may try, but the death must be clearly caused by the condition—not just coincidentally related. Courts often scrutinize these denials.
Are prescription drug overdoses always excluded?
No. If the insured had a valid prescription and did not intend to harm themselves, the death may qualify as accidental, depending on the policy wording.
What is an 'act of war' exclusion and when can it be challenged?
This clause is meant to exclude coverage for deaths in war zones. If the death was from street violence or criminal activity, it’s often misapplied and can be disputed.
Can DUI exclusions be used if someone else caused the crash?
Not always. If impairment did not cause the accident, the exclusion may not apply. Legal representation can help uncover the truth and argue causation effectively.