USAble Life Insurance - Arkansas Difficulties in claim payout - Accident Insurance Little Rock Arkansas

        I purchased an accident insurance policy from USAble Life in 2012. The policy looked great with broad types of coverage. The coverage included dental accidents/ injuries to crowns -- no specific exclusions. The policy did not have written disclaimers about types of accidents not covered. 

         The max coverage for such an event was $400. My wife lost a crown on a long trip. It involved an eating accident that  loosened a crown that later feel off. I filed a claim when we got home a got a very quick denial. They referenced their appeal process that could take up to 90 days. I filed a response as to why the first denial basis was not reasonable or fair under the circumstances of our situation. I emailed it back in quickly. 3 months later I got the response which now had a different reason for denial. Seemingly they agreed with my first appeal argument. 

          The second denial was due to the fact that the accident occured in the process of a normal everyday life activity. I wrote a second appeal and made pointed out that the contract did not exclude normal life/daily activities, and nor should it as it would make no sense to only insure non normal activities. I gave the example of walking and tripping for instance. I asked for an explanations about the unwritten exclustion of normal life/daily activities as being excluded. The third denial came back 90 days later. It did not answer my question about the unwritten exclusion. It did include the early reasons for the initial denial and restated the normal/daily life activities. It seemed to me that my appeals were not being read at all because I could answers never addressed my questions. I felt they should at a minimum be able to show where the exclusion of normal/daily life activities appeared in the contract. 

          In summary, I think the rotating claim-denial issues , the maximimizing the time for processing appeals, and not responding to specific questions in the appeals I wrote, were all signs of a company more intent on avoiding claims that being reasonable about obligations. I don't think I know any people who need an accident policy that doesn't cover normal daily activites and doesn't define that in the contract. Perhaps they just cover skydiving and an intential accidents. Under any circumstances, the policy I purchased was of no value to me, and the time involved to file and appeal was all wasted as I never got a specific answer about the surprise exclusion.