The Fourteen-Month-Old Term Policy and a Pending Toxicology Report
A $500,000 twenty-year term policy was issued 14 months ago on a 52-year-old insured who died when his pickup left a two-lane road at 1:40 a.m. and struck a tree. The application answered 'no' to tobacco use in the past 12 months and 'no' to treatment for depression or any mental health condition. Records obtained under the application's authorization show a 2021 diagnosis of major depressive disorder, an active sertraline prescription, and an urgent-care visit for chest pain four months before the application. The medical examiner's toxicology report is pending; a preliminary screen is positive for amphetamine and alcohol. The death certificate lists cause and manner as pending. The beneficiary is the insured's business partner, who is also the executor. The insured's adult daughter has retained counsel and told the funeral director she believes the partner 'pushed him.' The policy has a two-year contestable period. The state requires a claim decision within 90 days of proof of death unless the insurer documents a good-faith investigation.
1. Prioritize the first 30 days of investigation and identify which evidence actually decides whether rescission is available.
Read the worked answer
Two questions run in parallel, and they should not be conflated. The first is contract validity: was there a material misrepresentation on the application, and was it discovered inside the contestable period? Death occurred 14 months after issue, so the two-year window is open and rescission remains legally available if the misstatements are material. The second is the manner of death, which drives the accidental-death and suicide analysis, not the misrepresentation analysis.
For the contract question, the decisive evidence is the complete application and all supplements, the underwriting file and the manual in effect at the time, the agent's file and a statement from the agent, full medical records, and pharmacy fill history. The fill dates on the sertraline are critical: a fill in the 12 months before the application makes the 'no treatment' answer false on the face of the record, without any medical opinion.
For the manner question, obtain the police crash report, the autopsy and final toxicology, the vehicle inspection and event data recorder download, and the medical examiner's determination when issued. Use legal process, not informal requests, for phone and location records.
Sequence: preserve the application and underwriting file first, request records second, and hold the decision until the 90-day clock or a documented good-faith extension applies.
2. How do you assess materiality of the application misstatements, and what do you need from underwriting?
Read the worked answer
Materiality is not whether the answer was wrong; it is whether a reasonable insurer would have issued the policy at all, or at a different rate or with a different exclusion, had the truth been disclosed. That is an underwriting judgment, and the investigator's job is to build the record that lets an underwriter state it in writing.
Get the underwriting manual and the rate tables in effect on the application date. Get a written declaration from an underwriter who has authority on this product, answering a specific question: given a disclosed diagnosis of major depressive disorder with an active SSRI prescription and a chest-pain workup, would this policy have been issued as applied for, rated, postponed, or declined? A conclusory statement that the company 'would have declined' is weak; a statement tied to the manual's specific treatment of mental health diagnoses and prescriptions is strong.
Interview the agent on what was asked and what was disclosed, because in many states the agent's knowledge can be imputed to the insurer and can defeat rescission. Reconcile the application answers against the prescription database and the medical records line by line, with dates. If the records show a diagnosis in 2021 and the application was signed later, there is no need to argue intent on the depression question; the factual falsity is documented.
3. The daughter alleges the beneficiary 'pushed him.' What is your scope, and how do you avoid overstepping?
Read the worked answer
Your scope is the claim, not a homicide investigation. The allegation is relevant to the claim in narrow ways: it bears on whether a slayer statute or beneficiary-disqualification rule could apply if a beneficiary were criminally responsible, and it may bear on competing claims to the proceeds. It does not authorize you to investigate a death as a crime.
Document the allegation as reported, with the source, date, and the funeral director's exact account, and do not repeat it as fact anywhere in the file. Confirm whether law enforcement and the medical examiner are aware of the concern, and cooperate with them; the crash report and the eventual manner determination are the authoritative sources. Do not interview the daughter without counsel involved, and do not share the insured's medical information with her, since she is not a claimant and has no authorization.
Work with coverage counsel on the options: proceed to a decision on the contract and manner questions if the evidence supports it, or file an interpleader if genuinely competing claims to the proceeds emerge. Avoid any statement to the business partner characterizing the daughter's allegation as an accusation of murder, both because it is unproven and because loose language in a claim file is discoverable and damaging.