Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung Ag
671 F.3d 856
9th Cir.2010Background
- California enacted § 354.4 to extend claims under life insurance to Armenian Genocide victims and heirs, with a definition of Armenian Genocide victim and insurers that may be sued.
- § 354.4(b) allows Armenian Genocide victims/heirs to sue in California courts for policies issued 1875–1923 in Europe/Asia.
- § 354.4(c) tolls statutes of limitations such that claims filed by 2010 may proceed.
- Movsesian filed a class action in 2003 against Victoria Versicherung AG, Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG, and Munich Re for several contract/related claims.
- Munich Re moved to dismiss for lack of standing and improper defendant; district court allowed some claims, denied others, and denied preemption challenges; interlocutory appeal was granted under § 1292(b).
- This appeal addresses (i) foreign affairs preemption, (ii) whether Munich Re is a proper defendant, and (iii) standing under § 354.4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 354.4 is preempted by federal law under the foreign affairs doctrine | Movsesian argues a clear federal policy forbids Armenian Genocide recognition and thus preempts § 354.4 | Munich Re contends § 354.4 conflicts with federal policy or is field-preempted | Not preempted; no clear express federal policy against Armenian Genocide terminology and no field preemption |
| Whether Munich Re is a proper defendant under § 354.4 | Munich Re should be liable because its subsidiaries issued policies | Section 354.4 targets insurers; Munich Re argues it is not an insurer | Munich Re proper defendant because its subsidiaries issued policies and the statute limits claims types, not defendants |
| Whether Movsesian has standing to sue under § 354.4(c) | § 354.4(c) permits action by Armenian Genocide victims or heirs | Standing limited by who is a victim or beneficiary | Movsesian has standing under § 354.4(c) to pursue benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 2003) (foreign affairs preemption and state insurance regulation)
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 2008) (limits of executive action and preemption in foreign affairs)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) (field preemption in foreign affairs context)
- Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003) (preemption involving war-related claims)
- U.S. v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (Supreme Court, 1937) (federal power over foreign relations)