Tweet
CIRCUIT SIDES WITH INSURER ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS
Ginny LaRoe
Law.com
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202543376231
Feb 24 2012
SAN FRANCISCO - After three rounds at the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals, lawyers at Mayer Brown pulled off a full win for a German
insurer fighting claims by survivors of the Armenian Genocide.
A unanimous en banc opinion said the California law that allowed for
Armenian Genocide survivors to bring suit for certain insurance claims
is preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine.
"This disposes of all remaining claims," said Neil Soltman, a Los
Angeles-based Mayer Brown partner who argued Movesian v. Munich,
07-56722, before the court three times. "If the Supreme Court doesn't
take it, the case is over."
Mayer Brown represents German Munich Re, the parent company of the
insurance companies in the suit. Nearly a decade ago, survivors of
Armenians killed or persecuted in the World War I era brought the
class action over payments on life insurance policies, claiming breach
of contract and unjust enrichment, among other things. California
passed a measure in 2000, California Code of Civil Procedure §354.4,
that allowed California courts to hear insurance claims by "Armenian
Genocide victims."
The Ninth Circuit has grappled with the case for years. It issued
two panel opinions - one for the insurance company, another for the
plaintiffs after Senior Judge Dorothy Nelson changed her position -
before Thursday's en banc ruling by Judge Susan Graber.
Her ruling relies on analysis in a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision
in another case handled by Soltman and Mayer Brown, Am. Ins. Ass'n v.
Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396.
Graber wrote that it's "clear that the real purpose of" the California
law is "to provide potential monetary relief and a friendly forum
for those who suffered from certain foreign events." That's the
same purpose held unconstitutional in Garamendi. However "laudable"
the goal may be, Graber wrote, it's not an "area of traditional
state responsibility, therefore the statute is subject to a field
preemption analysis."
Graber then determined that the law intrudes on the federal
government's "exclusive power to conduct and regulate foreign affairs."
Graber rejected plaintiffs' argument that the California law
concerned an area of traditional state responsibility because it
regulated insurance. Kathryn Lee Boyd of Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd &
Rader in L.A., argued for plaintiffs.
The appeals court remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims.
Also on the panel were Judges Mary Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt, Sidney
Thomas, Barry Silverman, Margaret McKeown, Raymond Fisher, Richard
Paez, Johnnie Rawlinson and Sandra Ikuta and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.
Ginny LaRoe
Law.com
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202543376231
Feb 24 2012
SAN FRANCISCO - After three rounds at the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals, lawyers at Mayer Brown pulled off a full win for a German
insurer fighting claims by survivors of the Armenian Genocide.
A unanimous en banc opinion said the California law that allowed for
Armenian Genocide survivors to bring suit for certain insurance claims
is preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine.
"This disposes of all remaining claims," said Neil Soltman, a Los
Angeles-based Mayer Brown partner who argued Movesian v. Munich,
07-56722, before the court three times. "If the Supreme Court doesn't
take it, the case is over."
Mayer Brown represents German Munich Re, the parent company of the
insurance companies in the suit. Nearly a decade ago, survivors of
Armenians killed or persecuted in the World War I era brought the
class action over payments on life insurance policies, claiming breach
of contract and unjust enrichment, among other things. California
passed a measure in 2000, California Code of Civil Procedure §354.4,
that allowed California courts to hear insurance claims by "Armenian
Genocide victims."
The Ninth Circuit has grappled with the case for years. It issued
two panel opinions - one for the insurance company, another for the
plaintiffs after Senior Judge Dorothy Nelson changed her position -
before Thursday's en banc ruling by Judge Susan Graber.
Her ruling relies on analysis in a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision
in another case handled by Soltman and Mayer Brown, Am. Ins. Ass'n v.
Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396.
Graber wrote that it's "clear that the real purpose of" the California
law is "to provide potential monetary relief and a friendly forum
for those who suffered from certain foreign events." That's the
same purpose held unconstitutional in Garamendi. However "laudable"
the goal may be, Graber wrote, it's not an "area of traditional
state responsibility, therefore the statute is subject to a field
preemption analysis."
Graber then determined that the law intrudes on the federal
government's "exclusive power to conduct and regulate foreign affairs."
Graber rejected plaintiffs' argument that the California law
concerned an area of traditional state responsibility because it
regulated insurance. Kathryn Lee Boyd of Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd &
Rader in L.A., argued for plaintiffs.
The appeals court remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims.
Also on the panel were Judges Mary Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt, Sidney
Thomas, Barry Silverman, Margaret McKeown, Raymond Fisher, Richard
Paez, Johnnie Rawlinson and Sandra Ikuta and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.