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.
3 ("While Allstate argues the policy wisdom of the resulting absence of an imposter exception to the incontestability clause, Allstate's complaint is properly directed to the Florida [L]egislature--not this court.
The legislative purpose behind incontestability clauses is laudable--to protect beneficiaries from an insurer's refusal to honor policies, thereby initiating costly litigation.
The distinction is significant because while a claim of false representation is generally barred by incontestability clauses, the majority of courts considering the issue recognize that claims to void a life insurance policy on the basis of imposter fraud at the medical examination are not barred by incontestability clauses.
Vestal's policy with Revere contained an incontestability clause providing that "[n]o claim for Disability beginning after two years from the Date of Issue will be reduced or denied because of a disease or physical condition that existed before the Date of Issue unless it is excluded by name or specific description.
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.
