What can be inferred about life insurance policies regarding beneficiaries when there is no war clause?

The selection indicating that there are no limitations on payouts during wartime is correct because a life insurance policy without a war clause typically means that the insurer does not impose restrictions on claims arising from deaths that occur due to war-related activities. In essence, if a life insurance policy lacks such a clause, it suggests that the insurer is willing to pay out the full benefit, regardless of whether the insured dies as a direct result of war. This reflects the understanding that the policyholder is covered even under circumstances that many policies might otherwise exclude.

In contrast, other options present ideas that do not directly relate to the implications of the presence or absence of a war clause. For example, the idea that beneficiaries receive lower payouts does not logically follow since, without the war clause, payouts remain intact and unaffected. Similarly, the notion that benefits are contingent upon the cause of death is misleading because the absence of a war clause actually provides broader coverage rather than conditionality. Lastly, the assertion that beneficiaries are automatically disqualified lacks merit since the absence of a war clause inherently affirms their eligibility for claims related to war-related deaths. This context reinforces why the idea of having no limitations on payouts during wartime is the most accurate understanding of policies lacking a war clause.