AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 18 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO LIFE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BASED ON DEATH RESULTING FROM SUICIDE.
Summary
HB299 amends Delaware’s insurance code to shorten the permissible suicide exclusion period in life insurance policies from two years to one year after the policy is issued. Under current law, insurers may limit or deny coverage for death by suicide within two years of issuance; this bill reduces that window to one year for policies issued after the act’s effective date. The bill also specifies that the suicide exclusion applies whether the insured was sane or insane at the time of death.
In addition, the bill adds a consumer-protection requirement: if a death benefit is denied because the insured dies by suicide within the one-year exclusion period, the insurer must refund all premiums paid for the coverage that would have paid that denied benefit. The act takes effect six months after enactment, giving insurers time to adjust policy forms and practices.
Impact
The bill would amend Title 18, section 2926 of the Delaware Code governing life insurance policy limitations and exclusions. Its main legal effect is to reduce the maximum suicide exclusion period from two years to one year for life insurance policies issued on or after the effective date, while preserving insurers’ ability to include other permitted exclusions such as war, aviation, hazardous occupations, and residence outside the continental United States and Canada. It also creates a new refund obligation for premiums when a claim is denied under the suicide exclusion, directly affecting insurers, policyholders, and beneficiaries.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill: it passed House Third Reading unanimously, 36-0. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials. The overall posture of the bill appears favorable and noncontroversial in the House, with broad agreement on limiting the suicide exclusion period and adding a premium refund requirement.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the policy change itself could raise issues for insurers and consumer advocates. Insurers may be concerned about reduced underwriting flexibility and the administrative impact of refunding premiums, while supporters are likely to view the bill as a fairness measure that shortens the exclusion period and ensures premiums are returned when coverage is denied. Because the vote was unanimous and no transcript is available, any disagreement appears minimal or not reflected in the record provided.