- 2,617
OK, that was my understanding, that some U.S. states use the Canadian fraud exception.
Not exactly. The Canadian fraud exception is written into Canadian policies making it a contractual obligation. I don't recall ever seeing a US policy with that exception written in. In the US the fraud exception would be created by the courts based on the circumstances which means that the decision could go either way in any particular case. In the example I provided, NJ could potentially allow it, NY did not.
To determine the positions of other states you would have to do state by state research. Google Scholar is a good place to start researching case law.
Next we can ask an agent from that state(s), who sell in that state, for a sample policy wording or copy of the applicable law which sets this out.
That would show you the policy wording but not necessarily that state's judicial rulings on the fraud exception.
I should explain that NOTHING irritates me more than when I hear of a life insurance company declining payment of a death benefit. This industry makes money selling paper that has a promise. When there is even the slightest hint that the promise is no good, it hurts the entire industry.
Give me a break. The American life insurance industry is worth so many gazillion trillion billion dollars that denying an occasional death claim for good cause isn't going to hurt it one bit.
People don't think twice about defrauding insurance companies and would do it a lot more if it wasn't for the contestability clause in life insurance policies and the Concealment, Misrepresentation and Fraud provisions of property-casualty policies and the potential criminal prosecution for fraud.