Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Closer Look: The Supreme Court's Decision On Genocide-Era Insuranc

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Closer Look: The Supreme Court's Decision On Genocide-Era Insuranc

    A CLOSER LOOK: THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION ON GENOCIDE-ERA INSURANCE CLAIMS
    By Lilly Torosyan

    http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/07/10/a-closer-look-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-genocide-era-insurance-claims/
    July 10, 2013

    The upcoming centenary of the Armenian Genocide represents an important
    milestone in the international movement for a truthful, just, and
    comprehensive resolution of Turkey's crime against the Armenian nation.

    nahapetian torosyan A Closer Look: The Supreme Courts Decision on
    Genocide Era Insurance Claims ANCA Governmental Affairs Director Kate
    Nahapetian (L) and Lilly Torosyan.

    A just resolution of the Armenian Genocide would include, first and
    foremost, the realization of the national claims of Armenia and the
    Armenian people to fair restitution and full reparations, as well as
    the return of church and community assets, and, of course, unhindered
    redress for the individual rights of genocide-era victims to their
    properties and assets.

    One particularly high-profile individual rights case involves the
    efforts of genocide-era beneficiaries to secure unpaid insurance
    payments for the death of their loved ones. This case has its roots
    in a law passed by the California legislature and has reached all the
    way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 10, the Supreme Court decided
    it would not review the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling that brought
    down the California state law extending the statute of limitations
    on insurance claims cases of the genocide era.

    In an interview with the Armenian Weekly, Armenian National Committee
    of America (ANCA) Governmental Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian
    discusses the background of the case, and the implications of this
    Supreme Court decision.

    The Framework of the legislation

    In 2000, the Legislature of the State of California passed a law that
    extended the time period for filings against life insurance companies
    for claims that were never paid out. Normally, one has two years to
    file these claims, but because of the wartime dislocation and chaos
    associated with this circumstance, the state prolonged the statute of
    limitations for any Armenian Genocide-era victim. Nahapetian explains
    that, despite common misunderstandings, descendants of non-Armenians
    and non-genocide victims who are owed their insurance payments can
    also file this claim, so long as they were citizens of the Ottoman
    Empire in the years of 1915-1923.

    The case began in the California Courts with pro-bono attorneys
    Vartkes Yeghiayan, Brian Kabatak, and Mark Geragos, who brought claims
    against several insurance companies, and were successful in several
    rulings, leading to settlements between companies such as New York
    Life and French carrier AXA. German insurer Munich Re (Munchener
    Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft), however, litigated the claim. The
    Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals filed three separate and
    conflicting opinions, the most recent being in February 2012, which
    invalidated the California statute of limitations for insurance claims
    during the genocide period, based on an unprecedented expansion of
    the rarely invoked doctrine of foreign affairs field preemption. This
    principle states that the State of California improperly interfered
    with foreign policy powers and the authority of the federal government.

    After this ruling, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse
    the decision of the Ninth Circuit Courts. Plaintiffs' lead attorney
    Igor Timofeyev, Esq. of Paul Hastings, LLP, filed the petition and
    a series of amicus briefs in support of the request, calling it a
    "revolutionary proposition [by the U.S. government] that states lack
    all authority to enact legislation concerning their citizens' private
    claims if they originate in events that occurred abroad." Attorneys
    Mary-Christine Sungaila and Seepan Parseghian of the Snell and Wilmer
    firm, as well as the Armenian Bar Association also filed amicus briefs,
    and were represented pro-bono by Bingham McCutchen, LLP, led by partner
    David Balabanian, a world-renowned lawyer. Other advocates of the
    plaintiffs include attorney David Salmons, chair of Appellate Practice
    Group; and Marco Simons, legal director for EarthRights International.

    The Supreme Court's ruling two weeks ago upheld the decision by the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to this ruling, the Court asked
    the Obama Administration for its views on the legal dispute. The
    solicitor general-the Executive Branch's representative before the
    Supreme Court-presented a long statement that was widely seen as
    making selective use of relevant law and the U.S. historical record.

    He, along with the State Department, indicated that they were concerned
    about the implications of the law on foreign policy. They argued that
    the issue of compensation for Armenian Genocide victims had been
    resolved in the period between 1923 and 1937 through the Treaty of
    Lausanne, which was never approved by the Senate and therefore had
    no legal effect as an international treaty. Even if it were deemed
    valid, the treaty made no mention of how to go about settling disputes
    between private individuals and business entities.

    The real issue: federalism

    Nahapetian notes that, at its core, this case does not address the
    fact of the Armenian Genocide, or whether Armenians and other genocide
    victims have claims against Turkey; rather, it was considered primarily
    on the grounds of federalism, and the question of giving preeminence
    to the federal executive on matters that involve foreign affairs,
    at the expense of state sovereignty.

    There currently is another case in California that deals with claims
    against Turkey for properties that were stolen during the genocide.

    The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provides certain immunity to
    foreign governments from lawsuits in the United States. Notably,
    the District Court-the first level in the state court system-found
    that Turkey was not immune from these lawsuits because of the human
    rights violations of its government during the genocide period.

    Nahapetian argues that just because the Supreme Court will not hear
    the insurance law case, it does not necessarily reflect whether they
    believe the decision was correct. "In order for [the Supreme Court] to
    hear the case, its primary concern is to manage conflicts between the
    other circuit courts around the country. In this case, because there
    are not many Armenian Genocide-related cases all over the country,
    there wasn't a clear conflict," she explains.

    Similar lawsuits

    When the California legislation was introduced in 2000, similar laws
    dealing with the Holocaust were also passed. Many of these different
    statutes were struck down and eventually went up to the Supreme
    Court, which also decided against these laws. However, the plaintiffs'
    argument was not based on the broad doctrine of field prevention that
    the Armenian case advocates. Instead, they addressed the policy of
    conflict preemption, where the federal government devises a plan that
    resolves the issue, thereby preventing states from interfering with
    that process. In this instance, the mechanism the federal government
    created resolved Holocaust insurance claims by negotiating with foreign
    Swiss and German insurance carriers, which led to the Supreme Court's
    ruling that states could not create other avenues to resolve the same
    claims for which the federal government has created a specific process.

    "In the Armenian case, they could not practice the policy of conflict
    preemption because the federal government has not created a mechanism
    to resolve these claims, so they remain outstanding," says Nahapetian.

    Timofeyev echoes a similar view regarding the outcome of the Armenian
    Genocide-era insurance law case, but notes, confidently, that "the
    proper scope of the foreign affairs preemption doctrine is an important
    issue that the Court will end up examining in the future."

    The Supreme Court reviews less than 1 percent of the cases that are
    brought to its attention every year, so both Timofeyev and Nahapetian
    maintain that there is hope to continue with this process until
    justice is achieved for these Armenian Genocide-era victims.

Working...
X