May 24, 2012

Lawyer Tries Again to Get U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Holocaust-Related Suit Related to Insurance Coverage

A lawyer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time to hear a case related to a federal block on Holocaust victims’ families suing European insurance companies for unpaid claims on policies bought before World War II.

Thomas Weiss, a Florida-based opthamalogist, wants to sue the Italian insurance company Assicurazoni Generali to redeem policies his father purchased in 1937. His family hasn’t been able to collect on any of the policies.

The Department of Justice has advised U.S. courts that foreign policy requires such cases be resolved through non-adversarial agencies set up to process Holocaust-era disputes.

However, Weiss’s attorney, Sam Dubbin, received documents in a Freedom of Information Act request this summer revealing that internally, high-ranking Justice Department officials questioned the legality of that position. The Center for Public Integrity last month reported that the department demanded some of the documents returned, saying they were released in a FOIA by mistake.

The Supreme Court said last month that it would not hear the Weiss case. But since then, Dubbin says three circuit courts of appeal have handed down separate decisions bolstering his case and the high court has asked the Justice Department’s Solicitor General to weigh in on a case with overlapping legal issues.

See previous post:  DOJ Releases, Then Tries to Reel Back FOIA Documents in Holocaust Case

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

American University Fellow

Amy Biegelsen won the Virginia Press Association’s 2009 Best in Show Award for a portfolio on health and environmental stories. She is the recipient of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association’s Excellence in Journalism prize for a story on children’s mental health issues and is a two-time finalist for the Livingston Award for Young Journalists. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Chicago.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.