At age 56, Margery Newman purchased a long-term care insurance plan from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). She opted for one of MetLife’s non-standard options for paying her insurance premiums; MetLife called the method she selected “Reduced-Pay at 65.” When Newman was 67 years old, she was startled to discover that MetLife that year more than doubled her insurance premium. MetLife insists that the increase is consistent with Newman’s insurance policy, including its Reduced-Pay at 65 feature. Newman was unpersuaded and brought this action to vindicate her position. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. We conclude, however, that Newman is entitled to relief on her contract claim and that dismissal of the remaining claims was premature. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.