The life insurance lawyers at our firm would like to share some denied life insurance claim cases with respect to Minnesota Life.
A man sued Minnesota Life for denying accidental death benefits after his loved one died from a fall caused by his leukemia and weakness. The Sixth Circuit upheld the denial, applying the “substantial factor test” and finding that the pre-existing condition indirectly caused the death.
A plaintiff sued Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from a heart attack. The insurer argued that the policy was void because the husband misrepresented his medical history on the application. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the husband’s misrepresentations were intentional or material. A woman sued Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from a gunshot wound. The insurer argued that the policy excluded death caused by suicide or self-inflicted injury. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the husband intended to kill himself or accidentally shot himself while cleaning his gun. A lady sued Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from a stroke. The insurer claimed that the policy lapsed due to non-payment of premiums before the husband’s death. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the insurer failed to provide proper notice of cancellation and that the policy was still in force at the time of death. The plaintiff sued Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from a motorcycle accident. The insurer argued that the policy excluded death caused by engaging in hazardous activities or operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the husband was intoxicated or engaged in a hazardous activity at the time of the accident.
A lady sued Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from cancer. The insurer claimed that the policy was rescinded because the husband lied about his smoking history on the application. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the husband’s smoking was a cause of his cancer or whether he knowingly lied about it. The plaintiff sued Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from a pulmonary embolism. The insurer argued that the policy excluded death caused by pre-existing conditions or complications from surgery. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the husband’s condition was pre-existing or whether his surgery was elective or medically necessary. Plaintiff filed suit against Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from an aneurysm. The insurer claimed that the policy was not in effect because it was never delivered to the husband before his death. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the Second Circuit reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the policy was delivered or whether delivery was waived by mutual agreement. The plaintiff sued Minnesota Life for denying life insurance benefits after her husband died from a heart attack. The insurer argued that the policy was not valid because it was issued without an insurable interest or consent from the husband. The district court granted summary judgment for Minnesota Life, but the First Circuit reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the husband had an insurable interest in his own life or whether he consented to being insured by his wife.
Free Consultation 800-330-2274