The Two-Year Clock: How a Misunderstood Clause Became My Key to Winning Impossible Life Insurance Cases

Introduction: The Case That Broke the Rules (and Almost Me)

Early in my career, I thought I understood justice.

I believed that if you argued the facts with passion and precision, the right outcome would follow.

Then I met the Miller family, and my neat, orderly world of law shattered.

Their case revolved around a life insurance policy and a single, devastating clause that, at the time, I saw as nothing more than a cruel, arbitrary trapdoor designed by insurance companies to escape their obligations.

Mr. Miller had passed away suddenly, just 18 months after taking out a substantial life insurance policy meant to secure his family’s future.

The insurer denied the claim.

Their reason? A “material misrepresentation” on his application.¹

He had, they claimed, failed to disclose a minor, unrelated health issue from years prior.

It had absolutely nothing to do with his cause of death, but under the terms of the policy’s two-year “contestability period,” that didn’t matter.³

I took the case, fueled by a righteous anger.

To me, this was a clear injustice.

The family had paid their premiums faithfully.

Mr. Miller had made an honest mistake, an oversight about something that was ultimately irrelevant.

I argued that the insurer was acting in bad faith, using a technicality to deny a legitimate claim.

I was passionate.

I was eloquent.

And I lost.

The court’s decision was cold and clinical.

The law was clear: during the first two years of a policy, an insurer has the right to contest it based on any material misstatement, regardless of its connection to the eventual claim.²

The Miller family was left with nothing but grief and mounting bills.

I was left with a profound sense of failure and a burning question: how could a system designed for protection be so unforgiving? For a long time, I saw the incontestability clause as a weapon wielded by powerful corporations against vulnerable families.

It was a view that was entirely, fundamentally wrong.

This report is the story of how that crushing defeat led me to a new understanding, a paradigm shift that not only reshaped my career but also revealed the hidden genius behind one of the most misunderstood principles in insurance law.

Part I: The Epiphany – It’s Not a Trapdoor, It’s a Due Diligence Clock

My disillusionment after the Miller case sent me deep into the history and theory of insurance law.

I was looking for a flaw in the logic, a way to fight back.

Instead, I found an epiphany.

The incontestability clause wasn’t a penalty on the policyholder; it was a mandate on the insurer.

It wasn’t a trapdoor for the consumer; it was a Due Diligence Clock for the company.

This reframing changed everything.

It’s a concept I’ve used to win countless cases since, and it’s the single most important idea you need to grasp to understand how life insurance truly works.

Here’s how the Due Diligence Clock analogy breaks down:

• Winding the Clock: The moment an insurer issues a life insurance policy, a two-year clock starts ticking. This isn’t a grace period for the policyholder; it’s a legally mandated investigation period for the company.⁵
• The Ticking: For those two years, the insurer has the right—and, I would argue, the duty—to perform its due diligence. It can scrutinize the application, pull medical records, and verify the information provided. This is the company’s one and only window to contest the policy’s validity based on misstatements made in the application.⁷
• The Alarm: When the two-year period expires, a loud alarm sounds. At this point, the insurer’s right to challenge the policy based on misrepresentation is extinguished. The policy becomes “incontestable”.⁵ The insurer must honor it, barring a few very narrow exceptions. This provides the ultimate peace of mind and certainty that the policy will do what it was purchased to do.⁶

The core purpose of the clause is to force insurers to do their underwriting homework before they issue a policy, not after a claim is filed when the insured is no longer around to defend their statements.⁶

It shifts the burden of investigation squarely onto the shoulders of the company.

The Clause as a Market Stabilizer

This led me to a deeper question.

The historical records showed that the incontestability clause was actually invented and voluntarily adopted by insurance companies themselves in the 19th century, long before it was required by law.¹³

Why would a business voluntarily limit its own ability to deny claims?

The answer lies in a powerful, second-order effect: market stability.

An insurance market where policies are unreliable is bad for everyone, including insurers.

Public trust is the currency of the industry.

By creating a rule that guaranteed finality and fairness, insurers created a more predictable and trustworthy product.

This gave consumers the “confidence in their financial planning” they needed to buy policies in the first place.¹³

The clause wasn’t just a consumer protection rule; it was a brilliant piece of market architecture that stabilized the entire industry by making the promise of insurance credible.

Part II: Winding the Clock – The Historical Mandate for Fairness

To fully appreciate the Due Diligence Clock, you have to understand the world before it existed.

The 19th-century insurance market was a treacherous landscape for consumers.

Insurers could, and often did, operate with a cynical business model: accept premiums for decades without question, and then, upon the insured’s death, dispatch investigators to flyspeck the original application for any trivial error made years or even decades earlier.¹²

The insured, of course, was deceased and unable to explain that a forgotten illness was minor or that a stated fact was a simple mistake.

Beneficiaries, already grieving, were often left with nothing but a rejected claim and the prospect of a costly, heart-wrenching lawsuit against a massive corporation.¹⁴

Public distrust of the insurance industry was rampant and entirely justified.¹⁴

Faced with this public relations crisis and significant sales resistance, the industry acted.

In a move of commercial genius, companies like the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Life Assurance Company began advertising their policies as “indisputable” after a certain period, sometimes with an exception for fraud.¹⁷

The London Indisputable Life company, formed in 1848, went so far as to build this promise into its constitution, stating that all questions of health and habits “are held as finally settled when the assured received his policy”.¹⁷

This was a market-driven solution to a market-based problem.

The clause was born not from government regulation, but from the industry’s own need to build trust.¹⁵

The idea was so effective and so fundamentally fair that governments took notice.

Lawmakers recognized that this self-imposed rule was a powerful tool for consumer protection.

In 1906, following the Armstrong Investigation which exposed widespread abusive practices by insurers, New York became the first state to pass legislation mandating an incontestability clause in all life insurance policies.¹²

Many other states and jurisdictions followed suit, transforming the clause from a competitive advantage into a legal cornerstone of the industry.¹⁴

This history reveals a fascinating pattern of public-private regulatory development.

The market itself identified a critical flaw—the lack of finality and trust—and innovated a solution.

Government then observed the success of this private-sector solution and codified it into law, making it a universal and non-negotiable standard.

The incontestability clause is therefore not an adversarial rule imposed upon an unwilling industry, but a collaborative evolution toward a fairer, more stable, and more trustworthy marketplace.

Part III: Reading the Clock Face – The Mechanics of the Contestability Period

During the two years that the Due Diligence Clock is ticking, the balance of power favors the insurer.

If the insured passes away within this window, the company has a legal right to “contest” the policy.

This means it can launch a thorough investigation, comparing the statements made on the application with the deceased’s actual medical records, financial history, and lifestyle habits.⁷

The Crux of the Matter: “Material Misrepresentation”

The insurer cannot deny a claim for just any error.

The entire dispute hinges on the legal concept of materiality.

A misrepresentation is considered “material” only if the insurance company can prove that, had it known the true facts, it would have acted differently.¹

Specifically, it must show that it either would not have issued the policy at all, or would have issued it on different terms, such as charging a significantly higher premium.¹

This is a high bar for the insurer to clear.

Let’s look at a few examples to see how it works in practice.

• Case Study 1: Clearly Material. An applicant, “John,” is diagnosed with advanced heart disease but states on his application that he has no known heart conditions. He dies of a heart attack one year later. The insurer discovers the diagnosis in his medical records. This is a clear case of material misrepresentation. The insurer would almost certainly not have issued the policy, or would have done so at a much higher rate, had it known the truth. The claim will be denied.²²
• Case Study 2: Clearly Immaterial. An applicant, “Jane,” accidentally writes down the wrong zip code on her application. She passes away 18 months later. The insurer cannot use this error to deny the claim. A typo in her address has no bearing on the risk assessment and is therefore not material.¹
• Case Study 3: The Grey Area. An applicant, “David,” is a recreational skydiver but doesn’t mention it in the “hobbies” section of his application. He dies in a car accident 20 months later. The insurer discovers his skydiving hobby during the investigation. This is where legal battles are fought. The insurer will argue that skydiving is a high-risk activity that is material to its underwriting decision.¹ The beneficiary’s lawyer will argue that the application question was vague, that David didn’t consider it a formal “hobby,” or that since his death was unrelated to the activity, the omission shouldn’t void the policy. The outcome here is uncertain and depends heavily on the specific wording of the application and the laws of the jurisdiction.

A crucial point to understand is that, during the contestability period, the focus is often on the impact of the information, not the applicant’s intent.

An innocent mistake or a forgotten detail can still be grounds for denial if the insurer can prove it was material to their decision-making process.¹

The question of whether the misstatement was deliberately fraudulent becomes much more important after the two-year clock has run O.T.

The Beneficiary’s Role During an Investigation

If you are a beneficiary of a policy where the insured has died within the contestability period, it is vital to understand that an investigation is normal.

You should:

1. Respond Promptly: The insurer will likely request medical authorizations and other documents. Provide these as quickly as possible to avoid unnecessary delays.⁸
2. Gather Your Own Documents: Collect copies of the death certificate, the policy itself, and any correspondence you have with the insurer.²⁴
3. Stay Calm: The investigation itself is not an accusation of wrongdoing. It is a standard, legally permitted process that the insurer undertakes to protect itself from fraud.⁸

Part IV: When the Alarm Sounds – The Shield of Incontestability

The moment the two-year contestability period ends, the entire dynamic of the insurance contract shifts dramatically.

The Due Diligence Clock’s alarm has sounded, and the power now rests firmly with the policyholder and their beneficiaries.

The insurer’s broad right to challenge the validity of the policy based on misstatements in the application is extinguished.¹

This is the true promise of the clause.

It provides certainty.

As the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, the object of the clause is “to create an absolute assurance of the benefit, as free as may be from any dispute of fact except the fact of death, and as soon as it reasonably can be done”.¹²

After two years of faithful premium payments, the policyholder and their family can rest assured that the policy has solidified into an ironclad promise.

It provides an invaluable peace of mind, knowing that an innocent mistake made years ago will not come back to haunt their loved ones in their time of greatest need.⁶

Forcing Underwriting Discipline

This shift in power reveals another of the clause’s brilliant, second-order effects: it imposes a strict discipline on the underwriting practices of the insurance industry.

Imagine a world without this two-year deadline.

An insurer would have little incentive to invest the time and money to thoroughly investigate an application upfront.

Why bother? They could simply accept the application, collect premiums, and if a claim arose—whether in three years or thirty—they could then launch an investigation, confident they could find some minor discrepancy to deny the claim.¹¹

The incontestability clause makes this lazy, reactive business model impossible.

The ticking of the Due Diligence Clock creates a powerful economic incentive for insurers to be rigorous and diligent from day one.

They know their window to uncover misrepresentations is strictly limited.

This forces them to invest in proper risk assessment, to ask clear and comprehensive questions on their applications, and to do their homework before they agree to cover a life.

In this way, the clause doesn’t just protect individual consumers; it elevates the operational standards of the entire industry, ensuring that underwriting happens when it should—before the policy is issued, not after a tragedy occurs.⁶

Part V: Stopping the Clock – The Few, Stark Exceptions

While the shield of incontestability is powerful, it is not absolute.

The law recognizes a few narrow, specific situations where an insurer can challenge a policy even after the two-year clock has run its course.

Understanding these exceptions is crucial to having a complete picture.

The Big Three Exceptions

Across most jurisdictions, three main exceptions are recognized:

1. Non-Payment of Premiums: This is the most fundamental exception. An insurance policy is a contract that requires ongoing consideration (the premiums). If the premiums are not paid and the policy lapses, it is no longer “in force.” The incontestability clause cannot protect a policy that has been terminated for non-payment.¹¹
2. Imposter Fraud: This is a rare but important exception that goes to the very heart of contract formation. This isn’t about a lie on an application; it’s about a lie regarding who the applicant is. For example, if a person with a serious illness (the applicant) has a healthy person (the imposter) take the required medical exam in their place, a valid contract was never formed. The insurer intended to insure the healthy person who took the exam, not the sick person named on the application. Because there was no “meeting of the minds” on the identity of the insured, the contract is considered void from the very beginning—or void ab initio.¹¹ The incontestability clause is part of the contract, and if the contract itself is void, the clause has no power.
3. Egregious or Intentional Fraud: This is the most complex and litigated exception. While the clause is designed to protect against claims of misrepresentation (even material ones), many jurisdictions allow an insurer to contest a policy after two years if it can prove the policy was procured through deliberate, intentional fraud.⁶ This is a much higher standard than material misrepresentation. The insurer must typically prove that the applicant knowingly and willfully lied with the specific intent to deceive the company. The burden of proof is extremely high, and because the insured is deceased, proving their state of mind is exceptionally difficult. Some jurisdictions, like the Philippines, have an even stricter interpretation, holding that even proven fraud cannot be used to contest a policy after the two-year period has passed.²⁹

The Critical Distinction: Contesting Validity vs. Defining Coverage

A final, subtle point is essential to understanding the limits of the clause.

The principle, most famously articulated by Justice Benjamin Cardozo in the 1930 case Metropolitan Life Ins.

Co. v.

Conway, is that the incontestability clause bars a contest over the policy’s validity, but it does not bar a defense based on the policy’s coverage.¹³

In other words, after two years, the insurer cannot say, “This policy is invalid because you lied on the application.” That is a contest of validity.

However, the insurer can still say, “We agree this policy is valid, but the specific cause of death is not covered under its terms.” That is a defense of coverage.

This is why specific policy exclusions remain enforceable after the contestability period.

For example, most policies contain a “suicide clause” that excludes coverage for suicide within the first two years.²⁵

If an insured commits suicide after three years, the incontestability clause prevents the insurer from investigating the original application for misstatements, but the suicide exclusion itself has expired.

Conversely, if a policy contains an exclusion for death occurring during an act of war, that exclusion remains in effect for the life of the policy.

The incontestability clause does not rewrite the terms of coverage or force an insurer to pay for a risk it explicitly excluded from the contract.³⁰

Part VI: Clocks in Different Time Zones – A Global and State-by-State Analysis

While the two-year Due Diligence Clock is a common standard, its precise application is far from universal.

The interaction of the incontestability clause with other legal doctrines creates a complex and often contradictory patchwork of rules across the United States and around the world.

For anyone dealing with a life insurance dispute, understanding your specific jurisdiction is paramount.

The American Divide: Insurable Interest vs. Incontestability

In the United States, the most significant legal battleground involves the clash between the incontestability clause and the doctrine of “insurable interest.” The insurable interest doctrine is a foundational principle of insurance law, requiring that the owner of a life insurance policy must have a legitimate interest in the continued life of the insured.³¹

This rule exists to prevent life insurance from becoming a grotesque wager on human life, where a stranger might profit from another’s death.¹⁶

This creates a conflict in the context of Stranger-Originated Life Insurance (STOLI), a practice where investors or promoters induce individuals (usually seniors) to take out policies on their own lives with the pre-arranged intention of selling them to these third-party investors.³³

The investors, who have no relationship with the insured, then pay the premiums and collect the death benefit.

The legal question is profound: If a STOLI policy lacks a valid insurable interest from its inception, making it void as a matter of public policy, can the two-year incontestability clause later “cure” this fatal defect and make the policy enforceable? American courts are deeply divided on this issue.

• The “Pro-Insurer” View (Insurable Interest Trumps): States like New Jersey, Delaware, and Illinois prioritize the public policy against wagering. Their courts have ruled that a policy created without a valid insurable interest is void ab initio (from the beginning). If the contract is void, all of its clauses, including the incontestability clause, are legal nullities and have no effect. In these states, an insurer can challenge a STOLI policy for lack of insurable interest at any time, even decades after it was issued.³⁵
• The “Pro-Investor” View (Incontestability Trumps): States like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Utah take the opposite approach. Their courts have held that the incontestability clause is absolute. Its purpose is to create certainty and finality in the marketplace. Therefore, after two years, an insurer is barred from challenging the policy on any grounds related to its inception, including lack of insurable interest. This view prioritizes the stability of contracts over the public policy concerns surrounding STOLI.³⁵
• The “Composite” or Statutory Approach: A third group of states, including California and New York, have a more complex position. Their approach is often dictated by specific anti-STOLI statutes passed at a certain point in time. In these states, whether a STOLI policy is contestable after two years can depend on the exact date the policy was issued or sold, creating a time-sensitive legal landscape where a policy issued in 2009 might be incontestable while an identical one issued in 2011 might be void.³⁵

The following table summarizes the fractured legal landscape in the U.S., providing a critical reference for a complex issue.

State/Jurisdiction	Legal Stance	Rationale / Key Case or Statute
New Jersey	Pro-Insurer	Public policy against wagering is paramount. A STOLI policy is void ab initio, so the incontestability clause never becomes effective. Sun Life v. Wells Fargo.35
Delaware	Pro-Insurer	Follows the New Jersey approach, holding that lack of insurable interest is a defense that is not barred by the incontestability clause.18
Illinois	Pro-Insurer	A policy procured through a STOLI scheme is void as an illegal wager, and the incontestability clause cannot be used to enforce it. Ohio Nat. Life Assur. Corp. v. Davis.35
Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia	Pro-Insurer	Courts in these states have generally followed the pro-insurer approach, allowing challenges based on lack of insurable interest after the contestability period.34
Florida	Pro-Investor	The incontestability clause is absolute and bars a challenge for lack of insurable interest after two years, prioritizing contractual certainty. Wells Fargo v. Pruco Life.35
Pennsylvania, Utah	Pro-Investor	Courts have followed the Florida model, holding that the incontestability clause trumps the insurable interest requirement after the contestability period ends.35
California, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin	Composite / Statutory	The outcome depends on the timing of the policy relative to specific anti-STOLI legislation. Policies issued before the statutes are often treated under the pro-investor rule, while those issued after are subject to the pro-insurer rule.35

International Perspectives: A Different Philosophy

Outside the United States, the legal frameworks governing policy validity and disclosure often reflect a different philosophical approach, focusing more on proportionality and the specific duties of the parties.

• United Kingdom: The UK does not have a statutory incontestability clause in the same way the US does. Instead, the legal framework is built upon the Insurance Act 2015, which establishes a “duty of fair presentation”.³⁸ This duty differs for consumers and businesses.

• Consumers have a duty to “take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation.” The focus is on answering the insurer’s questions honestly and carefully.³⁹
• Non-consumers (businesses) have a higher duty to make a “fair presentation of the risk,” which involves proactively disclosing every material circumstance they know or ought to know.⁴¹
• Crucially, the remedy for a breach is proportionate. Instead of the all-or-nothing outcome common in the US, a UK insurer’s remedy depends on what it would have done had it known the truth. If it would have charged a higher premium, it can reduce the claim payment proportionally. It can only void the policy entirely if it would never have accepted the risk at all, or if the misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless.⁴¹ While policies are generally considered incontestable for non-fraudulent misrepresentation after a period (often two years by convention), the legal foundation is quite different.¹⁷

• Australia: The contestability period in Australia has traditionally been three years.⁴⁴ However, recent reforms are moving to standardize this to two years for retail life insurers to enhance consumer protection and align with international norms.⁴⁶ The system is governed by the
  Life Insurance Act 1995. Like the UK, fraud is an exception to incontestability. A key feature of the Australian system is the role of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), an independent body that provides free dispute resolution for consumers, offering an alternative to costly court proceedings.⁴⁷
• New Zealand: Recent major reforms, culminating in the Contracts of Insurance Act 2024, are bringing New Zealand’s laws more in line with Australia and the UK.⁴⁰ The law establishes that life insurance policies become incontestable after
  three years in the absence of fraud.⁵⁰ The reforms also introduce a diluted disclosure duty for consumers (similar to the UK’s “reasonable care” standard) and proportionate remedies for misrepresentation, moving away from the harsh, traditional all-or-nothing approach.⁴⁰

The table below provides a high-level comparison of these international frameworks.

Jurisdiction	Typical Period	Key Governing Principle	Treatment of Fraud	Primary Dispute Resolution Body
United States	2 years	Statutory Incontestability Clause	Exception, but high burden of proof on insurer	State/Federal Courts
United Kingdom	2 years (by convention)	Duty of Fair Presentation (Insurance Act 2015)	Always a defense to a claim	Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) / Courts
Australia	3 years (moving to 2)	Life Insurance Act 1995	Always an exception to incontestability	Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA)
New Zealand	3 years	Contracts of Insurance Act 2024	Always an exception to incontestability	Courts / Dispute Resolution Schemes

Part VII: The Specialized Clock – The Conundrum of Group Insurance

The Due Diligence Clock analogy works beautifully for individual life insurance, a simple two-party contract between an insurer and an insured.

However, its application to group life insurance—a three-party arrangement involving an insurer, an employer (the policyholder), and an employee (the insured)—has been a source of legal chaos for nearly a century.¹³

The core problem is that the standard incontestability clause was designed for the individual market and then awkwardly inserted into group policies without modification.

This created a legal square peg in a round hole, leading to decades of conflicting court decisions as judges struggled to apply the clause logically.

Drawing from extensive legal analysis, particularly a seminal 1974 law review article, we can identify the central debates that have plagued group insurance law ¹³:

1. “The Policy” vs. “The Certificate”: The clause typically states, “This policy shall be incontestable…”.¹³ Insurers argued this referred only to the master policy held by the employer. Since employers rarely make misrepresentations, this interpretation would render the clause’s protection almost useless for the actual insured employees, who receive “certificates” of coverage. Courts that adopted this narrow view effectively gutted the clause’s purpose in the group context.¹³
2. Defining “Insurability”: Many group policies state that misstatements related to an employee’s “insurability” become incontestable after two years. Insurers argued “insurability” meant only health status. But since most group policies don’t require individual medical underwriting, this interpretation is illogical. The more sensible view, argued forcefully in the dissent of the landmark Crawford case, is that “insurability” in the group context must also include eligibility requirements, such as being a full-time employee or belonging to a specific union. Under this view, an insurer could not deny a claim after two years by arguing the employee was never eligible.¹³
3. The “Never-Covered” Fallacy: A common argument from insurers was that an employee who failed to meet an eligibility requirement (e.g., working 30 hours per week) was “never covered” by the policy in the first place, and therefore could not benefit from the incontestability clause. This argument is logically flawed. An individual who lies about their health on an individual policy application was also technically “never eligible” for the policy they received, yet they are explicitly protected by the clause. The protection should apply equally in the group context.¹³

The Modern Trend: The “Discoverability” Test

Thankfully, a more logical and fair approach has emerged over time, pioneered in cases like the 1969 New York ruling in Simpson v.

Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company.

This approach, often called the “discoverability test,” aligns perfectly with the Due Diligence Clock paradigm.¹³

The test holds that the incontestability clause bars an insurer from denying a claim based on an employee’s ineligibility if the insurer could have reasonably discovered that ineligibility during the two-year contestability period.

The insurer had the means—payroll records, employer reports—and the time to verify eligibility.

If it failed to do its due diligence within the allotted two years, it cannot later use that failure as a reason to deny a claim.

This sensible approach places the burden of investigation where it belongs: on the insurer, during the ticking of the two-year clock.¹³

Conclusion: Setting Your Own Clock – A Practical Guide for Policyholders and Beneficiaries

Looking back at the Miller case that so profoundly shaped my career, I can see now how I would win it today.

My argument would not be a plea for sympathy based on the unfairness of the outcome.

It would be a cold, hard assertion of law based on the Due Diligence Clock.

I would concede that Mr. Miller made a minor, immaterial misstatement.

But the central point would be this: the insurer had 730 days to do its homework and find that error.

It failed.

The clock ran O.T. The policy became incontestable.

The time for investigation was over; the time for payment had begun.

The incontestability clause is not a legal footnote; it is one of the most powerful consumer protection principles in the entire financial world.

Understanding it transforms it from a source of anxiety into a shield of certainty.

Actionable Advice for Policyholders: How to Build an Ironclad Policy

Your goal is to make your policy as uncontestable as possible from day one.

• Practice Radical Honesty: The single best way to protect your policy is to be meticulously truthful on your application. Use a separate sheet of paper if you need more space. Disclose every doctor visit, every prescription, every condition, even if you think it’s minor. Don’t give an insurer any ammunition to use against your family.²⁴
• Review and Update: Life changes. Marriage, divorce, new children—these events should trigger a review of your policy and, most importantly, your beneficiary designations. Ensure the people you want to protect are correctly named.²⁶
• Keep Records: Always keep a copy of your completed application and all other documents you receive from the insurer. This can be invaluable if a dispute arises years later.⁴⁶

Actionable Advice for Beneficiaries: How to Fight a Denial

If you are facing a claim denial, especially within the contestability period, do not give up hope.

• Don’t Panic: An investigation during the first two years is standard procedure. It does not automatically mean the claim will be denied.⁸
• Demand the Denial in Writing: An insurer is legally obligated to provide a specific reason for denying a claim. This letter is the foundation of your appeal.²⁸
• Frame the Argument Correctly: The fight is not about whether a mistake was made. The fight is about whether that mistake was material. The burden is on the insurer to prove that it would have acted differently had it known the truth.
• Seek Expert Help Immediately: Do not try to fight an insurance company alone. An experienced life insurance attorney can request the full underwriting file, challenge the insurer’s claims of materiality, and expose bad faith tactics. This is not a DIY project; it is a legal battle that requires a professional.²⁴

The Due Diligence Clock was born from the industry’s need for trust and codified by the law’s demand for fairness.

It is not a loophole to be exploited by the dishonest, but a fundamental promise that after a reasonable period of scrutiny, the protection a family has paid for will be there when they need it most.

It holds the entire industry to account, ensuring that the final word on a life insurance policy is not a question mark, but a period.

Works cited

1. What Are the Most Common Reasons for Life Insurance Disputes …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.gmlawyers.com/faq/what-are-the-most-common-reasons-for-life-insurance-disputes/
2. 4 most common reasons why insurers deny life insurance claims – United Policyholders, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://uphelp.org/4-most-common-reasons-why-insurers-deny-life-insurance-claims/?print=print
3. Brand New Policy Life Insurance Claim Denial, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.lifeinsuranceattorney.com/blog/2025/may/brand-new-policy-life-insurance-claim-denial/
4. 4 most common reasons why insurers deny life insurance claims – United Policyholders, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://uphelp.org/4-most-common-reasons-why-insurers-deny-life-insurance-claims/
5. www.investopedia.com, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/incontestability-clause.asp#:~:text=An%20incontestability%20clause%20in%20most,years%20due%20to%20a%20misstatement.
6. Life Insurance Incontestability Clauses | March 2022 – DeBofsky Law, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.debofsky.com/articles/incontestability-clause/
7. Period of Contestability in Life Insurance Claim – Disability Denials, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://disabilitydenials.com/faqs/period-of-contestability/
8. Life Insurance Claims and the Contestability Period, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.lifeclaims.com/blog/life-insurance-claims-and-the-contestability-period/
9. Understanding Incontestability Clause in Life Insurance – Number Analytics, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/incontestability-clause-life-insurance-law
10. What An Incontestability Clause Means For Your Disability Insurance Claim – Ortiz Law Firm, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.nickortizlaw.com/incontestability-clause-disability-insurance/
11. What Is an Incontestability Clause? – Gianelli & Morris, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.gmlawyers.com/faq/what-is-an-incontestability-clause/
12. Contestability Period – New York | Eric Dinnocenzo Law, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.dinnocenzolaw.com/practice-areas/insurance-denials/life-insurance-denials/material-misrepresentations-new-york/contestability-period-new-york/
13. The Incontestability Clause – Should It Be Interpreted to Protect the …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2190&context=cklawreview
14. The Incontestability Clause in Life Insurance Policies, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4724&context=wvlr
15. life insurance-the why, what and when of the incontestable clause peter m. sfikas – HeinOnline, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/abasineg34§ion=45
16. The Doctrine of Insurable Interest in Illinois as Applied to Life Insurance – Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1222&context=cklawreview
17. Incontestability Provisions in Insurance Law and Policies Jing, Z.; Zhong, M. Journal of Business Law – Bangor University Research Portal, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://research.bangor.ac.uk/files/17138793/JBL_2016_
18. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) C.A. No. 178, 2011 ) Plaintiff, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=160700
19. Life Insurance Overview – Florida Department of Financial Services, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/consumers/understanding-insurance/lifeinsuranceoverview
20. Life Insurance Material Misrepresentation Claim | Oberheiden P.C., accessed on August 10, 2025, https://federal-lawyer.com/injury-lawsuit/life-insurance-attorney/material-misrepresentation-claim/
21. Why Massachusetts Life Insurance Claims Get Denied for Misrepresentation, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://lifeinsurancelawfirm.com/why-massachusetts-life-insurance-claims-get-denied-for-misrepresentation/
22. Does Insurer Abuse Material Misrepresentation to Deny Your Claim?, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://disabilitydenials.com/blog/denial-for-material-misrepresentation/
23. 13 instances of denied life insurance claims based on mispresentation, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.lifeinsuranceattorney.com/blog/2023/may/13-instances-of-denied-life-insurance-claims-bas/
24. Do these 4 things to avoid Life Insurance Claim Delays or Denials, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://tillmaninsuranceadvisors.com/do-these-4-things-to-avoid-life-insurance-claim-delays-or-denials/
25. Standard Policy Provisions and Optional Riders – North Carolina Department of Insurance, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.ncdoi.gov/consumers/life-insurance/standard-policy-provisions-and-optional-riders
26. 9 Reasons Life Insurance Won’t Pay Out: What to Know, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.westernsouthern.com/life-insurance/reasons-life-insurance-wont-pay-out
27. Imposter Fraud and Incontestability Clauses in Life Insurance Policies – The Florida Bar, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/imposter-fraud-and-incontestability-clauses-in-life-insurance-policies/
28. What Is an Incontestability Clause in California? (2025), accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.hobbslawgroup.com/blog/what-is-an-incontestability-clause-in-california/
29. CONCEPT OF INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE UNDER LIFE INSURANCE – ALBURO LAW, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.alburolaw.com/concept-of-incontestability-clause-under-life-insurance/
30. 2020 Georgia Code Title 33 – Insurance Chapter 25 – Life Insurance § 33-25-7. Effect of Incontestable Clause, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-33/chapter-25/section-33-25-7/
31. Insurable interest – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurable_interest
32. Whither Grigsby? STOLI and the Assault on Insurable Interest – Cozen O’Connor, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.cozen.com/templates/media/files/60098_60098-stoli.pdf
33. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF PITT 21 CVS 0052 COLUMBUS LIFE INSURA, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2021%20NCBC%2052.pdf?VersionId=hjbCMoL1WhbdbgjrnNx_bZcpUPYQpL5f
34. CV-22-0202-CQ – SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2023/CV220202CQ.pdf
35. Betting On Strangers’ Lives: A Brief Look at How Different States Are Scoring the Insurable Interest vs. Incontestability Provision Debate | JD Supra, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/betting-on-strangers-lives-a-brief-look-1815416/
36. This Kind of “STOLI” is Against New Jersey’s Public Policy | NJ Appellate Law Blog, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.appellatelaw-nj.com/this-kind-of-stoli-is-against-new-jerseys-public-policy
37. STOLI Law Developing Across The Country As Courts Continue Deciding Cases, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.rivkinradler.com/publications/stoli-law-developing-across-the-country-as-courts-continue-deciding-cases/
38. Insurance Act 2015 – Legislation.gov.uk, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/part/2
39. THE DUTY OF FAIR PRESENTATION6, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://cila.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Chapter-6-The-Duty-of-Fair-Presentation.pdf
40. Industry overhaul: Contracts of Insurance Act 2024, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/industry-overhaul-contracts-of-insurance-act-2024
41. DLA Piper’s Practical Guide for Claims Managers in 2022 – Part 2 …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/practical-guide-for-claims-managers/dla-pipers-practical-guide-for-claims-managers-in-2022-part-2–the-duty-of-fair-presentation
42. THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AND FAIR PRESENTATION – Marsh, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.marsh.com/content/dam/marsh/Documents/PDF/UK-en/Duty%20of%20Disclosure%20and%20Fair%20Presentation.pdf
43. The Insurance Act 2015: What You Should Know – Squire Patton Boggs, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2016/07/the-insurance-act-2015-what-you-should-know/insurance-act-2015-what-you-should-know.pdf
44. Page | 0 – Protection Review, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://protectionreview.co.uk/images/uploads/Protection_Summit_White_Paper_March_2017.pdf
45. Comparative Insurance Law Clauses – Number Analytics, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/comparative-insurance-law-clauses-guide
46. Incontestability Clause In Australia: 2025 Guide For Life Insurance …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://cockatoo.com.au/understanding-incontestability-clause-australia/
47. Disputes about life insurance – ASIC, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/reporting-misconduct-to-asic/disputes-about-life-insurance/
48. Insurance Complaints to AFCA – Financial Rights Legal Centre, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://financialrights.org.au/factsheet/insurance-complaints-to-afca/
49. The Contracts of Insurance Act 2024 in New Zealand: What will this mean for insurers?, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.brownejacobson.com/insights/the-word-april-2025/contracts-of-insurance-act-2024
50. Insurance Law Reform in New Zealand – Professor Rob Merkin KC – Duncan Cotterill, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://duncancotterill.com/insights/insurance-law-reform-in-new-zealand/
51. Insurance Contracts Bill is back on Parliament’s agenda – MinterEllisonRuddWatts, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/insurance-contracts-back-on-parliament-s-agenda
52. Life Insurance Beneficiary Dispute in Florida – Law Offices of Jason Turchin, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.jasonturchin.com/blog/life-insurance-beneficiary-dispute-in-florida-how-to-handle-competing-beneficiaries/
53. What Can I Do If The Life Insurance Company Contested My Claim During The Two Year Contestability Period? – McKennon Law Group, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://mslawllp.com/what-can-i-do-if-the-life-insurance-company-contested-my-claim-during-the-two-year-contestability-period/