Tweet
Panel of Eleven Federal Appeals Judges Hears Oral Argument on Armenian
Genocide Era Insurance Recovery Suit
noyan tapan
2011-12-17 12:55:49 | | Press release
Federal Judges Question Lawyer for Insurer Munich Re as to Why They
Should Not Find Statute Authorizing Payment of Garden-Variety
Insurance Claims Constitutional
Glendale, CA - On Wednesday, December 14, four and a half years after
a federal district court judge in Los Angeles first held that a
California law extending the statute of limitations on Armenian
genocide era insurance claims (California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 354.4) was constitutional and not preempted by federal policy
pursuant to the foreign affairs doctrine, an en banc panel of eleven
Ninth Circuit appellate judges in San Francisco heard oral arguments
from the parties on the same issue before taking the matter under
submission. Plaintiffs-Appellees were represented by K. Lee Boyd of
Los Angeles law firm Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd & Rader LLP, Vartkes
Yeghiayan of the Yeghiayan Law Firm, and Mark Geragos of Geragos &
Geragos.
A video recording of the full oral argument can be accessed here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video_subpage.php?pk_vid=0000006174.
The case is Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung, originally filed by
descendants of Armenian Genocide victims in 2003, and names as
defendants German insurance companies Victoria Versicherung AG, Ergo
Versicherungsgruppe AG and parent company Munich Re. The action
accuses defendants of selling insurance policies to Armenians prior to
1915, when the government of the Ottoman Turkish Empire initiated a
genocidal campaign against Armenians living in Turkey. In the
aftermath of the massacres and deportations which resulted in the
death of over 1.5 million Armenians, survivors were scattered far and
wide around the world. Defendants failed to provide information about
the insurance policies issued to Armenians and refused to honor
claims. As a result, thousands of policies remain unpaid, divesting
beneficiaries, heirs, and rightful successors of the benefits due to
them. Defendants' continued election not to pay claims on these
policies thwarts even the smallest opportunity for genocide victims to
pass some legacy on to their survivors.
The League of Nations, in the 1920's, asked insurance companies doing
business in the Ottoman Empire to provide the names of Armenian policy
holders. The League of Nations stated that Armenian orphans were in
desperate condition and could benefit from the policies that their
parents had obtained, and therefore requested companies to issue a
list of names. Victoria was the only insurance company to identify
almost 300 Armenian policy holders. This lawsuit is brought on behalf
of surviving heirs of those policies.
The case mirrors other successful actions against insurance firms
filed in the Los Angeles federal court: Kyurkjian et al. v. AXA et
al., Case No. 2:02-cv-01750; Ouzounian et al. v. AXA et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-02596; and Marootian v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., Case
No. 2:99- cv-12073. The consolidated actions against AXA and N.Y. Life
both resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements benefiting the
families and beneficiaries of genocide victims.
The district court's 2007 decision upholding the California statute
has been the subject of two previous three-judge panel decisions at
the Ninth Circuit. In 2010, the most recent panel decision concluded
`that there is no express federal policy forbidding the state to use
the term Armenian Genocide,' and therefore affirmed the decision of
the district court that the statute is not preempted.
For a full hour on Wednesday morning in a San Francisco courtroom, the
eleven appellate judges fired questions at counsel for both parties,
seeking clarity on a variety of issues from conflict and field
preemption and their effect on the California statute to possible
war-time exemption clauses in insurance policies. Ms. Boyd
vociferously argued that the court should uphold the `constitutional
equilibrium between federal and state power' and allow the statute to
stand because California was acting within its traditional
responsibility in providing for payment of `garden-variety' insurance
claims. She argued that the statute simply extends the statute of
limitations for a group of people with special needs in establishing
the elements of contract claims. Mr. Geragos further noted that the
statute should simply be characterized as extending the limitations
period for a particular class of plaintiffs.
California federal and state legislators, as well as the states of
California, Hawai'i, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Rhode Island, filed
amicus briefs supporting Plaintiffs- Appellees and the state statute.
Given the success of the similar cases of AXA and N.Y. Life and the
increasing awareness of the historical plight of Armenians, proponents
of justice for victims of human rights violations and their heirs
would welcome an en banc affirmance of the 2010 panel decision and the
district court's original 2007 decision.
YEGHIAYAN Law Firm
A Professional Law Corporation
Genocide Era Insurance Recovery Suit
noyan tapan
2011-12-17 12:55:49 | | Press release
Federal Judges Question Lawyer for Insurer Munich Re as to Why They
Should Not Find Statute Authorizing Payment of Garden-Variety
Insurance Claims Constitutional
Glendale, CA - On Wednesday, December 14, four and a half years after
a federal district court judge in Los Angeles first held that a
California law extending the statute of limitations on Armenian
genocide era insurance claims (California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 354.4) was constitutional and not preempted by federal policy
pursuant to the foreign affairs doctrine, an en banc panel of eleven
Ninth Circuit appellate judges in San Francisco heard oral arguments
from the parties on the same issue before taking the matter under
submission. Plaintiffs-Appellees were represented by K. Lee Boyd of
Los Angeles law firm Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd & Rader LLP, Vartkes
Yeghiayan of the Yeghiayan Law Firm, and Mark Geragos of Geragos &
Geragos.
A video recording of the full oral argument can be accessed here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video_subpage.php?pk_vid=0000006174.
The case is Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung, originally filed by
descendants of Armenian Genocide victims in 2003, and names as
defendants German insurance companies Victoria Versicherung AG, Ergo
Versicherungsgruppe AG and parent company Munich Re. The action
accuses defendants of selling insurance policies to Armenians prior to
1915, when the government of the Ottoman Turkish Empire initiated a
genocidal campaign against Armenians living in Turkey. In the
aftermath of the massacres and deportations which resulted in the
death of over 1.5 million Armenians, survivors were scattered far and
wide around the world. Defendants failed to provide information about
the insurance policies issued to Armenians and refused to honor
claims. As a result, thousands of policies remain unpaid, divesting
beneficiaries, heirs, and rightful successors of the benefits due to
them. Defendants' continued election not to pay claims on these
policies thwarts even the smallest opportunity for genocide victims to
pass some legacy on to their survivors.
The League of Nations, in the 1920's, asked insurance companies doing
business in the Ottoman Empire to provide the names of Armenian policy
holders. The League of Nations stated that Armenian orphans were in
desperate condition and could benefit from the policies that their
parents had obtained, and therefore requested companies to issue a
list of names. Victoria was the only insurance company to identify
almost 300 Armenian policy holders. This lawsuit is brought on behalf
of surviving heirs of those policies.
The case mirrors other successful actions against insurance firms
filed in the Los Angeles federal court: Kyurkjian et al. v. AXA et
al., Case No. 2:02-cv-01750; Ouzounian et al. v. AXA et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-02596; and Marootian v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., Case
No. 2:99- cv-12073. The consolidated actions against AXA and N.Y. Life
both resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements benefiting the
families and beneficiaries of genocide victims.
The district court's 2007 decision upholding the California statute
has been the subject of two previous three-judge panel decisions at
the Ninth Circuit. In 2010, the most recent panel decision concluded
`that there is no express federal policy forbidding the state to use
the term Armenian Genocide,' and therefore affirmed the decision of
the district court that the statute is not preempted.
For a full hour on Wednesday morning in a San Francisco courtroom, the
eleven appellate judges fired questions at counsel for both parties,
seeking clarity on a variety of issues from conflict and field
preemption and their effect on the California statute to possible
war-time exemption clauses in insurance policies. Ms. Boyd
vociferously argued that the court should uphold the `constitutional
equilibrium between federal and state power' and allow the statute to
stand because California was acting within its traditional
responsibility in providing for payment of `garden-variety' insurance
claims. She argued that the statute simply extends the statute of
limitations for a group of people with special needs in establishing
the elements of contract claims. Mr. Geragos further noted that the
statute should simply be characterized as extending the limitations
period for a particular class of plaintiffs.
California federal and state legislators, as well as the states of
California, Hawai'i, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Rhode Island, filed
amicus briefs supporting Plaintiffs- Appellees and the state statute.
Given the success of the similar cases of AXA and N.Y. Life and the
increasing awareness of the historical plight of Armenians, proponents
of justice for victims of human rights violations and their heirs
would welcome an en banc affirmance of the 2010 panel decision and the
district court's original 2007 decision.
YEGHIAYAN Law Firm
A Professional Law Corporation