## Facts

- A life insurer submitted to the New York Superintendent of Insurance a proposed rider for attachment to life insurance policies.
- The rider stated that death resulting from “service, travel or flight in any species of aircraft,” except as a fare-paying passenger, was not a risk assumed under the policy; in such cases, the insurer would pay the policy reserve to the beneficiary.
- The Superintendent refused to approve the rider, concluding it conflicted with Insurance Law § 101(2), which required life policies to be incontestable after two years in force during the insured’s lifetime, subject to specified exceptions (including nonpayment of premiums and certain wartime military or naval service conditions).
- The Appellate Division reversed the Superintendent’s determination on judicial review, finding no real conflict between the rider and the statute.
- The Superintendent appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a rider excluding most aviation-related deaths from the risks assumed, while paying only the policy reserve, is inconsistent with a statutory incontestability requirement after two years.
2. Whether an incontestability statute limits an insurer’s ability to define the scope of coverage, as distinct from limiting defenses that attack the policy’s validity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
- The court held the aviation rider was not inconsistent with Insurance Law § 101(2).
- The court ruled that the incontestability requirement is not a mandate about what hazards must be covered; it restricts contests directed to the policy’s validity after the specified period.
- Because the rider limited assumed risks rather than asserting a forfeiture or invalidity defense, the Superintendent lacked a statutory basis to disapprove it.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory incontestability requirement bars certain challenges to the validity or enforceability of a life insurance policy after a defined period; it does not define mandatory coverage.
- A policy term that limits the risks assumed is treated as a coverage definition, not a prohibited “contest” of the policy.
- Statutorily required terms are read into the insurance contract and displace inconsistent provisions only to the extent of an actual conflict.
- The Superintendent’s form-approval authority prevents deviations from statutory requirements but does not authorize rejection of coverage limitations that do not conflict with mandated policy terms.

## Conclusion

The court held that an aviation-exclusion rider, coupled with payment of the policy reserve for excluded deaths, does not violate statutory incontestability because it limits coverage rather than contesting the policy’s validity after two years.


Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Conway, 252 N.Y. 449, 169 N.E. 642 (N.Y. 1930)