Life Insurance Denials Based on War and Terrorism Exclusions: What Beneficiaries Need to Know
When a policyholder dies due to terrorism, conflict, or violent attacks, life insurance companies may attempt to deny claims by invoking war or terrorism exclusions. These clauses are meant to protect insurers from liability during wartime or in cases of political violence—but they are often vague, inconsistently defined, or misapplied. In many of the cases we've handled or studied, courts have ruled in favor of beneficiaries, especially when exclusions were poorly worded or when the death was ultimately deemed criminal or accidental in nature. Below, our top life insurance lawyers share notable examples where insurers tried to deny claims using these controversial clauses—and lost.
United Home Life: 9/11 Victim’s Death Called an ‘Act of War’
After a man died during the September 11 attacks, United Home Life denied a $215,000 claim, arguing the death was due to an act of war. The beneficiary challenged the denial, noting that the attacks were widely recognized as terrorism, not warfare. The court agreed, finding the exclusion clause too ambiguous and inapplicable under the circumstances. The beneficiary prevailed, reinforcing that insurers cannot stretch a “war” clause to deny coverage from terrorist attacks unless clearly defined in the policy.
New Era Life: Paris Attacks Framed as Terrorism, Not Accident
New Era Life attempted to avoid paying a $500,000 claim following a woman's death in the 2015 Paris attacks. The company argued that the incident constituted terrorism and thus excluded the death from accidental death benefits. However, the policy had no explicit terrorism exclusion. The court sided with the beneficiary, ruling that without a clear exclusion, the woman's death must be treated as an accident under the policy's terms.
Physician’s Mutual: Las Vegas Shooting Mischaracterized
A $275,000 claim was denied after a man was killed in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. Physician’s Mutual labeled the incident as terrorism. Yet the policy didn’t define “terrorism,” and authorities never established a clear motive. The court concluded the insurer could not apply a terrorism exclusion without a definition or proven intent, and the death was more accurately classified as a homicide. The beneficiary won.
Unison International Life: Kabul Attack and the ‘Act of War’ Defense
Unison International denied a $150,000 life insurance claim for a man killed in a Kabul hotel attack. The insurer claimed the attack was part of an ongoing act of war. However, the court ruled that the event was a targeted criminal act and not a military operation or war in the legal sense. Furthermore, the policy’s language was insufficient to support the denial. The ruling favored the beneficiary.
National Guardian Life: Cyberattack Misclassified as Warlike Act
In a highly unusual case, National Guardian Life denied a $625,000 claim after a man died due to complications stemming from the Merck cyberattack. The insurer cited a “warlike act” or “terrorism” clause. The court rejected the defense, ruling the policy lacked a cyber-specific exclusion and there was no direct connection to a state actor or military engagement. The beneficiary recovered the full payout.
Delaware Life: Iraq War Death Labeled ‘Act of War’ Without Proper Exclusion
Delaware Life tried to deny a $175,000 claim for a man who died during the Iraq War, citing a war exclusion. But the court found the exclusion vague and the death accidental, as it wasn’t the result of combat or active duty engagement. The policyholder’s role and the context of death were central in proving that the exclusion didn’t apply. The claim was paid in full.
American Memorial Life: Madrid Train Bombings Called Terrorism
Following the Madrid train bombings, American Memorial denied a $230,000 claim, asserting the victim’s death fell under an implied terrorism exclusion. However, the policy failed to define the term or specifically list terrorism as an exclusion. The court found the death to be a homicide, not excluded under the policy. As a result, the beneficiary won.
Continental Life: Mumbai Attacks Deemed an ‘Act of War’
In a case involving the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Continental Life refused to pay a $250,000 claim, categorizing the events as acts of war. The court rejected that reasoning, stating the attacks were executed by a non-state group and were criminal in nature. With no valid war exclusion in the policy, the court sided with the beneficiary.
United Life: Brussels Bombings and the Accidental Death Benefit
After a woman died in the 2016 Brussels bombings, United Life denied her $380,000 claim under an accidental death rider, claiming her death was excluded due to terrorism. But the court found no specific terrorism exclusion and determined the cause of death was accidental. The beneficiary successfully recovered the policy benefits.
Why War and Terrorism Clauses Are So Often Disputed
Most life insurance policies contain language that excludes deaths due to “acts of war,” and some include exclusions for terrorism. However, these terms are frequently undefined, overly broad, or outdated. Courts often reject such exclusions when:
The policy doesn’t define “terrorism” or “war”
The attack was criminal, not military
The insured was a civilian uninvolved in conflict
There is no evidence the act was carried out by a nation-state or military group
Insurers have a financial incentive to interpret exclusions broadly, but courts focus on contract clarity and fairness. If there is any ambiguity, the law generally favors the policyholder or their beneficiaries.
FAQ
What is an “act of war” exclusion in life insurance?
It’s a clause that allows the insurer to deny claims if the insured dies as a result of war or military conflict. These exclusions are common in military and civilian policies but must be clearly defined.
Can insurers deny claims for deaths caused by terrorism?
Only if the policy has a specific terrorism exclusion. Without clear language, courts typically rule that terrorism-related deaths should be treated as accidents or criminal acts.
What if the death occurred overseas in a conflict zone?
If the insured was a civilian and not actively participating in hostilities, courts may determine the death was not due to war, especially if the policy lacks precise exclusions.
Can courts override an exclusion clause?
Yes. If the clause is ambiguous, undefined, or misapplied, courts often rule in favor of beneficiaries and require insurers to pay.