722 S.E.2d 32
Va.2012Background
- Maretta was named FEGLI beneficiary of Warren Hillman; they divorced in 1998 and Warren remarried Hillman in 2002 without changing the FEGLI designation.
- Warren died in July 2008; Hillman, Warren’s widow, claimed FEGLI benefits but Maretta asserted Maretta remained the rightful recipient under FEGLI.
- Hillman sued Maretta under Virginia Code § 20-111.1(D) seeking recovery of FEGLI proceeds.
- The circuit court held § 20-111.1(D) was not preempted by FEGLIA and entered judgment for Hillman in the amount of the FEGLI proceeds.
- Maretta appealed, arguing FEGLIA preempts both § 20-111.1(A) and § 20-111.1(D); the Supreme Court reversed, holding FEGLIA preempts § 20-111.1(D).
- The ruling focuses on whether FEGLIA’s preemption of state law governing FEGLI benefits extends to an equitable recovery action after payment to the designated beneficiary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEGLIA preempts Virginia Code § 20-111.1(D) | Maretta asserts FEGLIA preempts § 20-111.1(D) because it creates an improper state-law claim. | Hillman argues § 20-111.1(D) remains permissible to recover amounts improperly paid. | Yes; FEGLIA preempts § 20-111.1(D). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (1981) (SGLIA beneficiary rights preempt state law)
- Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655 (1950) (anti-attachment provision in NSLIA preempts state claims)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Christ, 979 F.2d 575 (7th Cir. 1992) (FEGLIA preemption under contract provisions)
- O'Neal v. Gonzalez, 839 F.2d 1437 (11th Cir. 1988) (FEGLIA intent to create inflexible beneficiary rule)
- Fagan v. Chaisson, 179 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. App. 2005) (state preemption challenged under FEGLIA; FEGLIA preempts to enforce designated beneficiary)