Advertisement

April 16, 2014

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Law Allowing Insurance Claims by Armenian Genocide Victims

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, struck down a California law, which extended the statute of limitations for insurance claims by the heirs of Armenian Genocide victims.  The court held that the California law was constitutionally preempted under the “foreign affairs doctrine” because it interfered with the federal government’s exclusive domain over foreign affairs.

The genesis of the Ninth’s Circuit’s opinion was a 2003 class action filed by the heirs of Armenian Genocide victims in California district court to recover the benefits of life insurance policies issued by several German insurance companies between 1875 and 1923.  One of the defendant insurers, Munich Re, moved to dismiss the class action on the basis that the California law was unconstitutional under the foreign affairs doctrine.  The district court denied Munich Re’s motion and Munich Re filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

In reversing the lower court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the California law was constitutionally preempted because it did not involve a traditional area of state concern and intruded on the federal government’s foreign affairs power.  The challenged statute vested California courts with jurisdiction to hear insurance claims by persons of Armenian ancestry who lived in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 and either died, were deported, or fled to avoid persecution.  The court reasoned that the California law was not the type of “garden variety” insurance regulation that is traditionally reserved for the states, and noted that the law expressed a “distinct political point of view on a specific matter of foreign policy.”  The court concluded that the application of the California statute would require a “highly politicized inquiry into the conduct of a foreign nation,” and therefore, remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss all claims by the life insurance beneficiaries.

The Honorable Susan P. Graber authored the opinion for the Ninth Circuit.

© 2014 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

About the Author

Associate

Andrew G. May is an associate in Neal Gerber Eisenberg’s Litigation Practice Group and its Insurance Policyholder Practice Group. Andrew takes a results-oriented approach to clients’ needs and delivers dynamic and efficient solutions to complex legal problems. Andrew’s practice encompasses a wide array of litigation matters, including breach of contract disputes, defamation, common law and consumer fraud claims, insurance coverage, products liability defense and class actions.

Andrew sits on the Board of Directors for the Evening Associates of the Art Institute of...

(312) 827-147

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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.