Tweet
STATE STATUTE EXTENDING JURISDICTION FOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS PREEMPTED
Insurance Law & Litigation Week
March 19, 2012
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's
judgment finding that a statute that extended state jurisdiction
over insurance claims arising from the "Armenian Genocide" was
not preempted by federal law. The statute intruded on the federal
government's exclusive power to conduct and regulate foreign affairs.
In 2000, the California Legislature enacted a statute providing the
state's courts with jurisdiction over insurance claims brought by
Armenian Genocide victims arising out of policies in effect in the
Ottoman Empire between 1875 and 1923, and extending the statute of
limitations for such claims.
Individuals of Armenian descent brought a class action against various
insurers which issued life insurance policies that were in effect in
Europe or Asia during that period, seeking a declaration of coverage
under the policies. A district court held that the statute at issue
was not preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine-which provides
that state laws that intrude on the federal government's exclusive
power, granted by the Constitution, to administer foreign affairs
are preempted. The district court also held that the class members
had standing to bring their claims. The insurers were granted leave
to bring an interlocutory appeal.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the statute at issue intruded on the
federal government's power to direct the nation's foreign policy,
and that in enacting the statute, the California Legislature could
not claim to be addressing an area of traditional state responsibility.
Statute intruded on federal government's power.
The Ninth Circuit held that application of the statute, which
represented an attempt to provide redress to those who suffered from
certain foreign events, intruded on the federal government's exclusive
power to conduct and to regulate foreign affairs. The statute expressed
a distinct political point of view on a specific matter of foreign
policy and imposed the politically charged term "genocide" on the
actions of the Ottoman Empire and, consequently, on present-day Turkey.
Moreover, the statute's jurisdictional grant was predicated on a
determination that the claim was brought by an Armenian Genocide
victim, or an heir or beneficiary of one. Courts applying this
provision might as a result have to decide whether the policyholder
escaped to avoid persecution, which in turn would involve the highly
politicized inquiry into the conduct of a foreign nation. Accordingly,
the Ninth Circuit held that the statute was preempted by federal law
and, accordingly, the district court's judgment was reversed and the
case remanded for further consistent proceedings. (For an earlier
decision in this case, see 8 IL&LW 102, Jan. 17, 2011.)
Counsel for plaintiffs : Lee Crawford-Boyd, Schwarcz Rimberg Boyd &
Rader L.L.P., 323-302-9488, Los Angeles; Mark J. Geragos, Geragos
& Geragos A.P.C., 213-625-3900, Los Angeles; Richard L. Kellner,
Kabateck Brown Kellner L.L.P., Enhanced Coverage LinkingKabateck
Brown Kellner L.L.P., -Search using:Company ProfileNews, Most Recent
60 Days213-217-5000, Los Angeles.
Counsel for Victoria Versicherung et al. : Neil M. Soltman, Mayer
Brown L.L.P., 213-229-9516, Los Angeles.
Source: Insurance Law and Litigation Week, 03/19/2012
Copyright © 2012 by Strafford Publications,
Inc. http://www.straffordpub.com
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Insurance Law & Litigation Week
March 19, 2012
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's
judgment finding that a statute that extended state jurisdiction
over insurance claims arising from the "Armenian Genocide" was
not preempted by federal law. The statute intruded on the federal
government's exclusive power to conduct and regulate foreign affairs.
In 2000, the California Legislature enacted a statute providing the
state's courts with jurisdiction over insurance claims brought by
Armenian Genocide victims arising out of policies in effect in the
Ottoman Empire between 1875 and 1923, and extending the statute of
limitations for such claims.
Individuals of Armenian descent brought a class action against various
insurers which issued life insurance policies that were in effect in
Europe or Asia during that period, seeking a declaration of coverage
under the policies. A district court held that the statute at issue
was not preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine-which provides
that state laws that intrude on the federal government's exclusive
power, granted by the Constitution, to administer foreign affairs
are preempted. The district court also held that the class members
had standing to bring their claims. The insurers were granted leave
to bring an interlocutory appeal.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the statute at issue intruded on the
federal government's power to direct the nation's foreign policy,
and that in enacting the statute, the California Legislature could
not claim to be addressing an area of traditional state responsibility.
Statute intruded on federal government's power.
The Ninth Circuit held that application of the statute, which
represented an attempt to provide redress to those who suffered from
certain foreign events, intruded on the federal government's exclusive
power to conduct and to regulate foreign affairs. The statute expressed
a distinct political point of view on a specific matter of foreign
policy and imposed the politically charged term "genocide" on the
actions of the Ottoman Empire and, consequently, on present-day Turkey.
Moreover, the statute's jurisdictional grant was predicated on a
determination that the claim was brought by an Armenian Genocide
victim, or an heir or beneficiary of one. Courts applying this
provision might as a result have to decide whether the policyholder
escaped to avoid persecution, which in turn would involve the highly
politicized inquiry into the conduct of a foreign nation. Accordingly,
the Ninth Circuit held that the statute was preempted by federal law
and, accordingly, the district court's judgment was reversed and the
case remanded for further consistent proceedings. (For an earlier
decision in this case, see 8 IL&LW 102, Jan. 17, 2011.)
Counsel for plaintiffs : Lee Crawford-Boyd, Schwarcz Rimberg Boyd &
Rader L.L.P., 323-302-9488, Los Angeles; Mark J. Geragos, Geragos
& Geragos A.P.C., 213-625-3900, Los Angeles; Richard L. Kellner,
Kabateck Brown Kellner L.L.P., Enhanced Coverage LinkingKabateck
Brown Kellner L.L.P., -Search using:Company ProfileNews, Most Recent
60 Days213-217-5000, Los Angeles.
Counsel for Victoria Versicherung et al. : Neil M. Soltman, Mayer
Brown L.L.P., 213-229-9516, Los Angeles.
Source: Insurance Law and Litigation Week, 03/19/2012
Copyright © 2012 by Strafford Publications,
Inc. http://www.straffordpub.com
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress