Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
Legal documents

Life Health > Life Insurance

What Minnesota's Revised Suicide Exclusions Statute Means for Insurers

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

What You Need to Know

  • The Minnesota update will take effect in just a few months.
  • Many insurers were using a two-year exclusion period.
  • Now, the maximum exclusion period is one year.

While the life insurance policy suicide exclusion is not an easy subject, most life insurance industry professionals are very familiar with those provisions.

The provisions bar beneficiaries from receiving payment on death claims when the insured party dies as a result of suicide.

However, a recent change to Minnesota Statute Section 61A.031, which spells out the insurance-relevant provisions in the “land of 10,000 lakes,” imposes new requirements on life insurers who issue policies containing such a provision.

This statutory amendment is likely to be one of many changes for the industry to monitor as America’s growing acceptance of mental health issues and the ensuing familial strain seep into new legislation and court decisions.

The statute takes effect soon.

First, some context. Minnesota Statute 60 was enacted in 1967, and its arrival coincided with the creation of the state’s Human Rights Department.

The follow-on Section 61A pertains specifically to life insurance policies.

The current version of Section 61A.031 states in part that for purposes of a suicide exclusion, “the sanity or insanity of a person shall not be a factor in determining whether a person committed suicide,” but the provision contains no limitation on the length of the exclusionary period.

This past summer, lawmakers amended Section 31 of Minnesota Statute Section 61A with this new language:

“A life insurance policy or certificate issued or delivered in this state may exclude or restrict liability for any death benefit in the event the insured dies as a result of suicide within one year from the date of the issue of the policy or certificate. Any exclusion or restriction shall be clearly stated in the policy or certificate. Any life insurance policy or certificate which contains any exclusion or restriction under this paragraph shall also provide that in the event any death benefit is denied because the insured dies because of suicide within one year from the date of issue of the policy or certificate, the insurer shall refund all premiums paid for coverage providing the denied death benefit on the insured.”

The revised statute (as well as the statute mandating certain notices to policyholders who replace their insurance, section 61A.60, subdivision 3) takes effect Jan. 1, 2024, and applies to policies issued on or after that date.

However, the phrasing of the provision raises the question as to whether an insurer applying a suicide exclusion is effectively paying a limited benefit in the form of a refund of premiums.

The relevant language in the act prompts two questions.

1. Has the time period that many life insurance policies include in a suicide exclusion provision for a Minnesota policyholder been reduced?

The answer is yes unless a policy already has a one-year limit on the exclusion.

Prior to the amendment, a life insurer issuing a policy in Minnesota could decide how long the suicide exclusion would be effective. The exclusion period was often two years.

The amended statute limits the time to invoke a suicide exclusion to one year and requires that insurers must refund premiums paid for instances in which the death benefit had been denied.

While the statute is too new to have been challenged in court, its language surrounding the time period looks legally sound and is substantially similar to other state statutes.

Interestingly, proceedings from the Minnesota House of Representatives’ discussion during the enactment process reveal that the initial recommendation was to limit the time period to three months.

A compromise was struck to land on one year, a time increment consistent with that now used in other states, such as Colorado and Missouri.

2. Does an insurer’s refund of premiums still constitute payment of a benefit?

This question is trickier because the term “denied death benefit” is not defined.

Some have questioned whether the phrase intends to overrule the accepted principle that an insurer’s refund of premiums paid constitutes “payment” of a limited benefit, and not a rescission of the policy.

It should be noted that industry guidance on applying a suicide provision and exercising a rescission are not synonymous.

According to Chapter 6 of the International Claim Administration’s Principles and Practices, “[i]nvoking the suicide provision is not the same as rescinding the policy, even though both of these actions usually involve a return of premiums paid….payment of premiums is not a refund, but is the payment of the limited benefit that was contractually agreed upon.”

Additionally, the Minnesota amendment makes no reference to an insurance policy being rescinded.

Finally, it’s important to bear in mind the legislative process and discussion related to this amendment.

The bill’s original sponsor and the director of the Minnesota Insurance Financial Services Council have each stated that all interested parties had negotiated acceptable language for the statutory amendment.

It can be inferred, therefore, that the insurers whose interests were represented during the negotiations were satisfied with the use of “denied death benefit” in the statute’s language and that it was not intended to change the established meaning of a suicide exclusion where premiums are refunded.

The exclusion is a time-tested safeguard.

The suicide exclusion is a time-tested insurance industry safeguard meant to discourage individuals from purchasing a policy shortly before they die as a result of suicide so that the named beneficiary may receive the policy death benefits.

On the other hand, state legislatures such as Minnesota have implemented restrictions on the insurer’s right to invoke the suicide exclusion, likely reflecting society’s understanding and acceptance of mental health issues and their effects on policy beneficiaries have evolved over time.

Minnesota’s recent amendment reinforces that some of these changes may include new terms that are less familiar to insurance professionals, not to mention the courts.

The life insurers you work with would be wise to lean on trusted legal counsel so that they can make informed decisions on their rights and obligations.


Fountain pen (Image: iStock)Bill Hittler and Leah Kippola-Friske are business litigators at Nilan Johnson Lewis. They represent insurers and reinsurers in matters related to life, health and disability benefits claims.

..

..

..

..

Pictured: St. Paul, Minnesota’s capital city. Lawmakers in Minnesota have updated their state’s rules for a common life insurance policy provision. Credit: Shutterstock


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.