Wrong Date of Birth, Lapse, and Reinstatement
Marcus applied for a $500,000 20-year level term policy in March 2019. On the application he wrote his date of birth as March 2, 1976; his actual date of birth is March 2, 1972. The policy was issued at the standard rate for age 43 - $62 per month. In August 2023 he missed three premium payments and the policy lapsed. He reinstated it in December 2023 by paying the overdue premiums with interest and signing a statement of continued good health. He died of a heart attack in May 2026, and the insurer has just discovered the date-of-birth discrepancy. At his true age of 47, the same $62 monthly premium would have purchased $410,000 of coverage.
1. Does the incontestability clause prevent the insurer from reducing the death benefit? State the amount payable and explain.
Read the worked answer
No. Two different provisions are in play:
- Incontestability bars the insurer from rescinding the contract for misrepresentation after the contestable period (typically two years). That window closed in 2021.
- Misstatement of age is a separate clause that survives the contestable period. It does not void the policy; it adjusts the amount payable to whatever the premium actually paid would have bought at the correct age.
The math: $62 per month bought $500,000 at age 43, so the same $62 buys $410,000 at age 47. Payable death benefit: $410,000.
The reasoning matters more than the arithmetic: this was a pricing error, not a concealment of health history. The remedy for an innocent age error is adjustment, not rescission - which is why the clause exists at all. A claimant's representative might argue for the full $500,000 on the theory that the insurer had the application and could have verified the date of birth, but the clause allocates that risk to the insured and the adjustment will almost certainly hold.
2. What did the December 2023 reinstatement restore, and what did it not? Would the analysis change if Marcus had died in June 2024 of a condition he failed to disclose on the reinstatement statement?
Read the worked answer
Restored: the policy went back in force at the original issue age, original premium, and original face amount - reinstatement is not a new contract with a new issue age. Not restored: coverage for the lapse period. Had he died in October 2023, the beneficiary would have received nothing but the premiums tendered at reinstatement.
The June 2024 variation is the interesting one. The statements on a reinstatement application are generally treated as a fresh basis for contest, so many states allow a new contestability period running from the reinstatement date for those statements, and the suicide exclusion typically restarts as well. On those facts a death within months of reinstatement, from a condition not disclosed on the health statement, could be contested even though the 2019 application was long past its contestable window. This is exactly why a client with a recent lapse should never treat reinstatement as a formality.
Either way, the misstatement-of-age adjustment still applies independently - reinstatement did not reset his age to 43. State law and the contract's own wording control the contestability question, so the policy language should be checked before advising.
3. Suppose Marcus had died in March 2020, inside the contestable period, before the discrepancy surfaced. Could the insurer have rescinded, or would it still have adjusted to $410,000?
Read the worked answer
It could have contested, but rescission would be a weak position on these facts. Inside the two-year window the insurer may investigate and rescind for a material misrepresentation, and the remedy for rescission is a refund of premiums rather than payment of the face amount.
However, where the misstatement is purely one of age and the applicant had no apparent motive beyond the premium difference, the misstatement-of-age clause is generally treated as the exclusive remedy - the insurer adjusts the benefit rather than voiding the contract. Drawing that distinction is the judgment call the exam is testing: the question is not simply "was there an error?" but "was the error material to the underwriting decision, or merely to the price?" A four-year age misstatement on a term policy is a price error. If the file showed a deliberately falsified identity or a fabricated birth record used to hide a disqualifying history, rescission becomes defensible.
Practical answer: expect $410,000 and a fight only over the difference.