Aviva Life & Annuity Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
654 F.3d 1129
10th Cir.2011Background
- On August 22, 2008, Columbian Bank & Trust Company was closed and the FDIC became receiver.
- Plaintiffs held twelve accounts at Columbian, including the Challenged Accounts totaling about $11.3 million.
- The FDIC aggregated Challenged Accounts as corporate accounts under 12 C.F.R. § 330.11, while other accounts were treated as annuity contract accounts under § 330.8.
- FDIC concluded the Challenged Accounts were corporate accounts based on the depositor records, limiting insurance to the SMDIA; plaintiffs argued they were annuity accounts insurable per annuitant under § 330.8.
- The district court upheld the FDIC’s determination; plaintiffs appealed, and the court affirmed the district court.
- FDIC relied on § 330.5 to presume ownership as indicated in the failed bank’s records and did not consider extrinsic evidence in the final determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Challenged Accounts are properly treated as corporate vs annuity accounts | Plaintiffs argue § 330.8 governs annuity accounts and the accounts funded annuities. | FDIC adheres to § 330.11 for corporate accounts and § 330.8 only for qualifying annuity accounts. | FDIC reasonable; final determination upheld. |
| Whether § 330.5 applies to per-annuitant coverage under § 330.8 | § 330.5 should not restrict consideration for annuity coverage derived from intent to fund annuities. | § 330.5 applies broadly; records control absent ambiguity. | § 330.5 applicable; FDIC’s interpretation reasonable. |
| Whether FDIC arbitrarily reversed prior intermediate determinations without explanation | FDIC relied on extrinsic evidence in earlier steps and reversed without justification. | Final determination based on § 330.5 and records; extrinsic evidence not part of final decision. | No arbitrary action; final rationale consistent with regulations. |
| Whether the agency’s final action is reviewable and properly upheld under APA standards | Challenge to final agency action should be reviewed for arbitrariness and caprice. | Agency action is entitled to deference; court should uphold if reasonable. | Agency action not arbitrary or capricious; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. FDIC, 748 F.2d 1400 (10th Cir.1984) (courts defer to FDIC's record-based determinations)
- Bell v. FDIC (In re Collins Secs. Corp.), 998 F.2d 551 (8th Cir.1993) (FDIC relies on failed bank's records in insurance determinations)
- Raine v. Reed, 14 F.3d 280 (5th Cir.1994) (support for FDIC’s reliance on records in insurance claims)
- Villafañe-Neriz v. FDIC, 75 F.3d 727 (1st Cir.1996) (affirming reliance on bank records for insurance decisions)
- Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2008) (administrative deference to agency interpretation of regulations)