Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3589
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- California codified §354.4 authorizing California courts to hear Armenian Genocide–related insurance claims and extending the limitations period for claims on policies issued between 1875–1923.
- Movsesian and others filed a class action against Victoria, Ergo, and Munich Re seeking damages under contract, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust theories.
- Munich Re moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing §354.4 is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and preempted by the foreign affairs doctrine.
- The district court held §354.4 not preempted and allowed most claims to proceed; the court dismissed unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims.
- The Ninth Circuit granted en banc review to address whether §354.4 is preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine and related questions; the panel’s and en banc decisions are at issue.
- The court ultimately held §354.4 preempted under field preemption and remanded to dismiss the revived claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §354.4 is preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine. | Movsesian argues §354.4 intrudes on federal foreign affairs power. | Munich Re contends no preemption or that any issue is non-preempted. | Preempted under field preemption; §354.4 invalid. |
| Whether §354.4 concerns a traditional area of state responsibility. | Movsesian contends insurance regulation is traditional state domain. | Munich Re argues it mainly regulates insurance matters. | Not traditional state responsibility; law’s real purpose targets foreign policy. |
| Whether §354.4 intrudes on federal foreign affairs power. | Movsesian asserts no intrusion beyond state regulation. | Munich Re contends no exclusive federal domain impact. | Intrudes on federal power; imposes a foreign-policy–driven program. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garamendi v. Board of Trustees of California, 539 U.S. 396 (U.S. 2003) (field preemption discussion; state insurance regulation not sufficient to justify policy)
- Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1967) (foreign relations implications of state probate/ownership decisions)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) (field preemption applied to Holocaust-era art claims)
- Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003) (field preemption considerations in foreign affairs context)
- United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1942) (exclusive federal power over foreign affairs)