For the first time, a lawsuit indirectly involving the Armenian Genocide is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since its initial filing in 2003, various federal courts have taken conflicting positions on this lawsuit.
Here is a brief background to the case: In 2000, the California legislature adopted a law—Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure—extending to 2010 and subsequently to 2016 the deadline for Armenian Genocide victims or their heirs to file claims on insurance policies issued from 1875 to 1923 to persons living in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923.
In December 2003, several California Armenians filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against German insurance companies for refusing to pay the proceeds of life insurance policies purchased by their ancestors in the Ottoman Empire. The German companies, supported by the Turkish government, objected to the lawsuit and sought to have it dismissed. They claimed that the California law authorizing the lawsuit was unconstitutional because its reference to the Armenian Genocide conflicted with the federal government’s policy on this issue.
When the Federal District Court rejected the insurance companies’ argument on June 6, 2007, they appealed to a panel of three federal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court. In a 2-1 opinion, the judges ruled on Aug. 20, 2009 that the California law conflicted with the Executive Branch’s foreign policy prerogative. The Armenian plaintiffs then sought a rehearing of the case by the same panel of three judges. On Dec. 10, 2010, the majority of the judges ruled that the California statute did not violate the foreign affairs doctrine.
Unhappy with this reversal, the German companies appealed to the full (en banc) Ninth Circuit Court. By a unanimous decision, the panel of 12 federal judges ruled on Feb. 23, 2012 that the California law was unconstitutional, as it “intruded on the federal government’s foreign affairs power.” Using the rarely invoked doctrine of “field preemption,” the judges ruled that Section 354.4 was unconstitutional not due to any conflict with specific actions of the federal government, but because it dealt with an area of exclusive federal responsibility, namely foreign relations.
On June 22, 2012, Igor Timofeyev of Paul Hastings LLP, counsel for the Armenian plaintiffs, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. He argued that this is the “perfect vehicle to clarify the foreign affairs preemption doctrine” and that “the Ninth Circuit’s unwarranted expansion of the field preemption doctrine would…imperil numerous state laws dealing with traditional areas of state competency.” Citing Congressional and executive branch pronouncements favoring the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Timofeyev pointed out that the U.S. government not only did not object to the Armenian Genocide Resolutions issued by various states over the years, but in fact welcomed them, as President Obama had done in his statement of April 24, 2012.
Meanwhile, a Supreme Court ruling in another case may have improved the prospects for the Armenian appeal. Just days after Timofeyev filed his petition, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on an Arizona statute dealing with undocumented immigrants. The Arizona case raised the very issue that is at the heart of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision on Armenian insurance policies, namely whether a state law that could indirectly impact foreign relations in a particular area is subject to “field preemption” even in the absence of federal action in that area.
In ruling on the Arizona case, several justices found no preemption in the Arizona statute. Even the majority, which found some preemption in the Arizona statute, severely limited the application of the field preemption doctrine. Specifically, the court ruled that while states cannot act in an area where the federal government has a “complete,” “integrated and all-embracing” regulatory system, they can do so where the federal government has “expressed no more than a ‘peripheral concern’” or “done nothing to suggest it is inappropriate” for the states to act.
These statements provide strong support for overturning the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision on the Armenian insurance claims. That point will no doubt be urged on the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs and in the amicus briefs to be filed by the Armenian Bar Association and others.
This lawsuit is basically about non-payment of valid insurance claims and not about genocide recognition. German insurance companies are shamefully exploiting the genocide issue simply to avoid paying long overdue benefits to insurance claimants.
It is not known at this time if the Supreme Court will take up this appeal, since it accepts for review only a small number of cases each year.
Harut Sassounian
I have been following the litigation process on these cases filed on the Armenian Genocide and there’s something that’s always irked me when it has come down to the coverage of the topic in the local Armenian press: there is no mention of who actually started them or who is working on them now. At first I thought it was one of the political organizations here but after reading Michael Bobelian’s “Children of Armenia” (and Wikipedia, admittedly) I realize that it’s had more humbler beginnings. The brunt of the work has been done by Vartkes Yeghiayan and I just want to know why is everyone so reluctant (I say that because the absence of the name[s] in these articles is far too conspicuous) to give credit where it is due? Can someone help me out here or am I missing something?
Gennady,
You are absolutely right that attorney Vartkes Yeghiayan initiated the life insurance lawsuits. Since then, many other lawyers have partnered with him and separated from him. I have not mentioned all of their names either. I have also not mentioned the huge amount of lobbying work done by the ANC to get the State of California to adopt the law extending the statute of limitation more than once.
The key thing right now is the appeal to the Supreme Court, and not who did what in the past. Do you have any comments on this highly significant appeal?
PS: Thanks for using your real name!
You mention Mr. Timofeyev but it was not just his law firm that worked on the brief filed with the Supreme Court. It was filed by Mr. Yeghiayan and to the best of my knowledge there’s also Mr. Michael Bazyler and Kathryn Lee Boyd, the former a professor of Loyola Law School and the other a Los Angeles-based lawyer who specializes in human rights law, who’ve worked on it as well (at least according to the brief). I think for the benefit of the reader, providing the context of any popular issue as this one is essential, even if it is deemed as an event from the “past”. Again, excuse me for my own ignorance, but have lawyers from the ANCA filed any cases previously or (it’s alright if you can’t tell me ;) ) do they have plans to do so in the future?
I think I agree with the others in the assessment that after all is said and done this boils down to a simple breach of contract. The insurance company(ies) failed to honor the contracts that the policyholders had taken out and did not pay the heirs of the victims. The word “genocide” almost does not even come into play here since it is only used to describe roughly the period in question.
The case could put the Administration in a difficult position. It would want to invalidate all state law which comes close to conflict with federal law or powers. On the other hand, Obama would have to agree that the Cal law is in conflict with his administration to take that position, which he is also loathe to say.
His way out is to say that while the law is not in conflict with his administration’s policies, it nonetheless entertains a subject matter which intrudes on the foreign policy of the United States.
All of this is sheer nonsense, by the way. The California law does not in substance depend upon whether the acts which killed policyholders were Genocide, state murder or something else. All the Cali law does is extend a limitations period for insurance claims, which is a state prerogative. Turkey is not a sovereign defendant; insurance carriers are. I think that if the USSC takes the case, which is unlikely, they may reverse for that narrow reason, namely that the law does not intrude on a federal prerogative at all. Whenever possible, the Court will decide an issue on a non-Constitutional ground.
I completely agree with your last paragraph and the matter of genocide is not the determining factor in the case. A narrow list of policy holders lost their lives and their families should have received the insurance according to the rules of the policy. That fact they died as part of a larger genocidal event should not have to enter into it, because as you say, Turkey is not a defendant here.
I don’t believe Germany has supported these companies the way Turkey has.
The extension of the limitation period also is not about recognition of the genocide, which as far as I know California had done earlier.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but the internet makes it so easy to play one :)
I have no issue with mentioning anyone’s name! Mr. Yeghiayan’s office has posted some of my columns on the C.A.R. website. My primary intent in writing this column is to inform the readers that a historical petition had been submitted to the Supreme Court on a subject related to the Armenian Genocide. I doubt too many Armenians were aware of this petition to the Supreme Court until today.
I have written many commentaries over the years mentioning Vartkes Yeghiayan’s name, as well as the names of other attorneys involved in this and other cases. But, I don’t have to repeat their names every time that I write a column on this subject. The issue here is no longer who started it, but where we are today!
Furthermore, the cover page of the petition lists six attorneys. Mr. Timofeyev is singled out for a very simple reason: He is the only one listed on the petition as “Counsel of Record.” One of the attorneys involved in the petition advised me that Mr. Timofeyev is the lead appellate counsel for this appeal and a former clerk to Justice Kennedy. So I chose to mention his name rather than all six names.
Rather than delve too much into the details of this very important issue*I leave that to you people who above have in detail discussed it-I wish to very plainly bring to the attn of all that once more of such life policy cases are won by dear Vartkes Yeghyaian, *or his successors, it will help us IN GENERAL the following>/
Many many Armenians who held Life insurance policies, their heirs will be paid and that will GO TO indirectly confirm that .THAT MANY ARMENIANS AT THE SAME TIME PERIOD LOST THEIR LIVES …
Not by natural causes*at the same time period but at a time when somethign was being implemented …by the genocide state..
Let others surmise why so many life insurance [policies were HONOURED and paid by AXA and prior to AXA, by New York Life Insurance companmy.
my fathers’ grandfather was Andranik zoravar friend iam sure i had life insurance also is name is EXYA KARAPETYAN