Incontestability clauses were designed to 1) encourage insurers to investigate facts promptly; 2) protect insureds' reasonable expectations of recovery; 3) prevent insurers from relying on minor misstatements to void policies; and 4) preclude life insurers from making charges against deceased individuals who are unable to rebut them.
9) The beneficiary moved for summary judgment, arguing the incontestability clause barred the insurer from raising any defense.
11) The court nevertheless determined the defense of an alleged impersonation of the insured by another at the physical examination was not barred by the incontestability clause.
Moreover, it observed that the incontestability clause is designed to promote stability by creating a reasonable expectation by the insured that a claim on a valid policy will be paid: Under an imposter situation, the beneficiary had no such reasonable expectation of payment.
The court stated that Porcaro "recognized that were a jury to determine that the insured lived for two years from the date the policy issued, the statutory incontestability clause would bar any defense of fraud based on the circumstances of the insured's disappearance.
In its petition for panel reconsideration, the insurer acknowledged the Florida Supreme Court has noted the incontestability clause "is in the nature of, and serves a similar purpose as, a statute of limitations.
None of these purposes is served by enforcing an incontestability clause when a life insurance policy is procured through the use of an imposter.
Fosaaen, Note, AIDS and the Incontestability Clause, 66 N.
Vestal and Revere settled in 1998, but Deonier and Revere continued to litigate, with Deonier alleging that Revere breached its duties to Deonier as agent in contesting the Vestal claim without having told Deonier that it would dispute such claims notwithstanding the incontestability clause of the policy.
Deonier also engaged in considerable review of precedent regarding the incontestability clause.