I believe (that’s why I’m asking) that life insurance becomes null and void in the event of a proven suicide. Is that the case?
I think also that although a death might look/smell/feel like suicide, it can’t be ruled in as suicide definitively without a note: that is, no note = no suicide. Is that correct from a legal viewpoint?
There is generally a two year contestability clause for suicide. If a death is ruled a suicide during the first two years of a policy, it is not covered. After that it would be covered, and is therefore not an issue.
This is to prevent people who are contemplating suicide from getting a policy to just to have the insurance company provide for their family. Two years is considered a cooling off period. However the reason suicides are covered after two years is so that families are not faced with the hardship of no coverage if a suicide does eventually happen.
I never heard anything about a note being required, but I guess sometimes it is up to the court to rule whether there was a suicide or not.
Most (maybe all in the U.S.) life insurance policies have a two year limit on not paying due to suicide. For example:
Within the two years, it may "look/smell/feel like suicide, but the company will have to pay it unless they can establish it was suicide. If they decide to refuse payment on this ground, or any grounds, they will have to be prepared to establish in court their rationale “more likely than not” if the beneficiary challenges it. They do not need a note, or even “suicide” as the official cause of death. But they need something to justify their position.
I’m pretty sure there are ways of determining if a death was suicide even if there’s no suicide note. If a death couldn’t be definitively determined to be suicide without a note, all someone who wanted to commit suicide and have their family get their life insurance would have to do to make that happen is not leave a note. Or if they did leave a note, a family member would just have to hide or destroy it before anyone from the police or insurance company could find it. Insurance companies can be plenty evil, but they generally aren’t stupid.
http://www.distresscentreoakville.com/suicide-myths-facts.php
“…a surprising number of people do not leave suicide notes. According to Canadian researcher Dr. A. Leenaars, who has extensively studied suicide notes, and only 12 to 37% leave notes.”
You’ll need to read the policy. Two years cooling off seems standard, but according to my New York Life agent their period is one year.
Don’t the police have to do some investigating when someone turns up dead from non-natural causes? I’d think that for any case other than a terminal patient purposely overdosing on their pain meds, the coroner is going to have to figure out how/why someone died - after all, if it wasn’t a suicide, it was likely a homicide.
Insurers look pretty carefully at deaths which occur within the 2-year contestability period of most life insurance policies. In addition to suicide, they’re also interested in whether the insured concealed any relevant information on the insurance application (like they knew they were terminally ill and failed to disclose that). Generally the carrier will refund the premiums paid if they deny the claim on those grounds, but policy conditions differ.
I’ve never dealt with a suicide denial, but I have tried a couple of cases where the insurance company denied based on misrepresentations on the application. The jury gets to decide whether there was a misrepresentation and whether there was intent to deceive, which can be tricky to prove since the applicant isn’t there to testify. Still, that’s what juries are for; you provide what evidence you’ve got and argue what conclusions can be drawn from it.
Some states (such as Colorado) limit the suicide contestability period to one year by statute.
I would guess that most legal systems woud, in case of such a policy, place the burden of proof to demonstrate that it was, in fact, a suicide on the insurance company. As a result, the doubt whether it was or was not suicide would work to the beneficiary’s advantage.
Not most (at least, not most US jurisdictions), but many. Usually they are what lawyers unhelpfully call “bursting bubble” presumptions.
Or accident, or misadventure.
Just out of curiosity, what’s a “bursting bubble” presumption?
Presumption vanishes in the face of any evidence to the contrary. In other words, you don’t have to disprove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
A legal fiction designed to confuse and frustrate law students taking evidence courses or preparing for the bar exam. Officially, what Procrustus said. 
Do any civilian life insurance policies cover suicide? I would have thought that at least some policies might cover it, even if they are more expensive. Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) is not voided at all by type of death, even suicide is covered.
In most jurisdictions, they are required to after the one- or two-year exclusionary period.
Yes, many do. I quoted my policy above, post 3.
I’ve never seen one that would cover it from day one, there is usually a period of 1 to three years where you’d not be covered.
Just don’t run into Edward G. Robinson.
(Is sleeping with Barbara Stanwyck worth it? Questions, questions…)
So, if there’s any indication of suicide, and it’s within the exclusion period, the insurance company can without payment?
No, the presumption go away. (and, if I’m not mistaken, it’s a presumption *against *suicide). Once there is no presumption one way or the other, the “normal” burden of proof applies. In my experience, the insurance company has the burden of proof to establish an exclusion applies.