A Closer Look: The Supreme Court’s Decision on Genocide-Era Insurance Claims

The upcoming centenary of the Armenian Genocide represents an important milestone in the international movement for a truthful, just, and comprehensive resolution of Turkey’s crime against the Armenian nation.

ANCA Governmental Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian (L) and Lilly Torosyan.
ANCA Governmental Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian (L) and Lilly Torosyan.


A just resolution of the Armenian Genocide would include, first and foremost, the realization of the national claims of Armenia and the Armenian people to fair restitution and full reparations, as well as the return of church and community assets, and, of course, unhindered redress for the individual rights of genocide-era victims to their properties and assets.

One particularly high-profile individual rights case involves the efforts of genocide-era beneficiaries to secure unpaid insurance payments for the death of their loved ones. This case has its roots in a law passed by the California legislature and has reached all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 10, the Supreme Court decided it would not review the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling that brought down the California state law extending the statute of limitations on insurance claims cases of the genocide era.

In an interview with the Armenian Weekly, Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Governmental Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian discusses the background of the case, and the implications of this Supreme Court decision.


The Framework of the legislation

In 2000, the Legislature of the State of California passed a law that extended the time period for filings against life insurance companies for claims that were never paid out. Normally, one has two years to file these claims, but because of the wartime dislocation and chaos associated with this circumstance, the state prolonged the statute of limitations for any Armenian Genocide-era victim. Nahapetian explains that, despite common misunderstandings, descendants of non-Armenians and non-genocide victims who are owed their insurance payments can also file this claim, so long as they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire in the years of 1915-1923.

The case began in the California Courts with attorneys Vartkes Yeghiayan, Brian Kabatak, and Mark Geragos, who brought claims against several insurance companies, and were successful in several rulings, leading to settlements between companies such as New York Life and French carrier AXA. German insurer Munich Re (Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft), however, litigated the claim. The Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals filed three separate and conflicting opinions, the most recent being in February 2012, which invalidated the California statute of limitations for insurance claims during the genocide period, based on an unprecedented expansion of the rarely invoked doctrine of foreign affairs field preemption. This principle states that the State of California improperly interfered with foreign policy powers and the authority of the federal government.

After this ruling, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit Courts. Plaintiffs’ lead attorney Igor Timofeyev, Esq. of Paul Hastings, LLP, filed the petition and a series of amicus briefs in support of the request, calling it a “revolutionary proposition [by the U.S. government] that states lack all authority to enact legislation concerning their citizens’ private claims if they originate in events that occurred abroad.” Attorneys Mary-Christine Sungaila and Seepan Parseghian of the Snell and Wilmer firm, as well as the Armenian Bar Association also filed amicus briefs, and were represented pro-bono by Bingham McCutchen, LLP, led by partner David Balabanian, a world-renowned lawyer. Other advocates of the plaintiffs include attorney David Salmons, chair of Appellate Practice Group; and Marco Simons, legal director for EarthRights International.

The Supreme Court’s ruling two weeks ago upheld the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to this ruling, the Court asked the Obama Administration for its views on the legal dispute. The solicitor general—the Executive Branch’s representative before the Supreme Court—presented a long statement that was widely seen as making selective use of relevant law and the U.S. historical record. He, along with the State Department, indicated that they were concerned about the implications of the law on foreign policy. They argued that the issue of compensation for Armenian Genocide victims had been resolved in the period between 1923 and 1937 through the Treaty of Lausanne, which was never approved by the Senate and therefore had no legal effect as an international treaty. Even if it were deemed valid, the treaty made no mention of how to go about settling disputes between private individuals and business entities.


The real issue: federalism

Nahapetian notes that, at its core, this case does not address the fact of the Armenian Genocide, or whether Armenians and other genocide victims have claims against Turkey; rather, it was considered primarily on the grounds of federalism, and the question of giving preeminence to the federal executive on matters that involve foreign affairs, at the expense of state sovereignty.

There currently is another case in California that deals with claims against Turkey for properties that were stolen during the genocide. The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provides certain immunity to foreign governments from lawsuits in the United States. Notably, the District Court—the first level in the state court system—found that Turkey was not immune from these lawsuits because of the human rights violations of its government during the genocide period.

Nahapetian argues that just because the Supreme Court will not hear the insurance law case, it does not necessarily reflect whether they believe the decision was correct. “In order for [the Supreme Court] to hear the case, its primary concern is to manage conflicts between the other circuit courts around the country. In this case, because there are not many Armenian Genocide-related cases all over the country, there wasn’t a clear conflict,” she explains.


Similar lawsuits

When the California legislation was introduced in 2000, similar laws dealing with the Holocaust were also passed. Many of these different statutes were struck down and eventually went up to the Supreme Court, which also decided against these laws. However, the plaintiffs’ argument was not based on the broad doctrine of field prevention that the Armenian case advocates. Instead, they addressed the policy of conflict preemption, where the federal government devises a plan that resolves the issue, thereby preventing states from interfering with that process. In this instance, the mechanism the federal government created resolved Holocaust insurance claims by negotiating with foreign Swiss and German insurance carriers, which led to the Supreme Court’s ruling that states could not create other avenues to resolve the same claims for which the federal government has created a specific process.

“In the Armenian case, they could not practice the policy of conflict preemption because the federal government has not created a mechanism to resolve these claims, so they remain outstanding,” says Nahapetian.

Timofeyev echoes a similar view regarding the outcome of the Armenian Genocide-era insurance law case, but notes, confidently, that “the proper scope of the foreign affairs preemption doctrine is an important issue that the Court will end up examining in the future.” The Supreme Court reviews less than 1 percent of the cases that are brought to its attention every year, so both Timofeyev and Nahapetian maintain that there is hope to continue with this process until justice is achieved for these Armenian Genocide-era victims.

Lilly Torosyan

Lilly Torosyan

Lilly Torosyan is a freelance writer based in Connecticut. Her writing focuses on the confluence of identity, diaspora and language – especially within the global Armenian communities. She has a master’s degree in Human Rights from University College London and a bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Boston University, where she served on the ASA Executive Board. She is currently working on her inaugural poetry collection.


  1. The fact that the only time armenians resort to legal means is for the insurance money gives the impression that they are after the money. Here is my question; Is there any one armenian who has sued Turkey in international courts? e.g the European Court of Human Rights? Or, why has not the state of armenia taken any action against Turkey in the United Nations? If you guys really do think your evidence is indisputable, sue Turkey and bring your evidence to court! Nah! You can’t do that. You know if full well if you do that your case is down the drain. The only time the armenian cause makes advances is when the armenians threaten the politicians of certain countries with their voting power.

    • I believe you may get some answers from Mark Geragos’ group http://www.geragos.com/. They were working on these types of cases. I may be incorrect, but they would be able to point you in the right direction or at least refer you. Being that Geragos is a celebrity lawyer, you may have to try a few times because of his hectic schedule. You can also try the Armenian Assembly of America, http://www.aaainc.org/ or the Armenian National Committee, http://www.anca.org/. Good luck!

  2. I just wrote to a few people,including to Harut sassounian.Our FIRST AND FOREMOST CLAIM SHOULD BE -DEFINITELY AS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT- lodging the cliam for…….B L O O D M O N E Y….
    it has precedents,the Jewish one from Germany(heir to Nazi Germany)also the NY LIfe and AXA much smaller claims already paid otu (some that is).But the Thick of our claim is for the blood of 1.5 million spilled.This ought to be considered by our Int´l attornyes and jointly sutided with our historians and File prepared and lodged with the appropriate instances, such as UN, Thje Euro Court of Justice etc.Land and property claim can follow later.Land is there it will not disappear::::
    What´s more thse are occupied mainly by K U R D S . we must contacgt latter in brussels where their Parliament in EXILE is….

  3. “Lawyer” Ahmad
    The fact that the Holocaust was universally acknowledged and condemned was not because Israel had sued Germany in United Nations or International Court of Justice or elsewhere. The Jews, that is, the main victims of the Holocaust were not even allowed to participate in the Nuremberg trials. Holocaust was recognized mainly because the big powers themselves had suffered enormously at the hands of Nazi Germany and were determined to punish the culprit. This was not the case with the perpetrators of Armenian Genocide. In spite of their promises and threats to punish the Young Turk criminals, the big powers of the time began to compete with each other after the war to appease Turkey for their own gains. The big powers of today behave not much differently from those days for their imagined political and economic interests with Turkey. That’s why The US adiministration interferes every year at the eleventh hour to overturn the resolutions of the houses which have time and again acknowledged the Armenian Genocide. But, of course the times can change, as we see it happen, and Turkey may no longer be able to hold its cherished place as the spoiled brat of the Anglo-Saxon powers.

  4. “Lawyer” Ahmet
    The fact that the Holocaust was acknowledged and condemned universally was not because Israel sued Germany in the United Nations, Inernational Court of Justice or the like. The jews, that is, the main victims of the Holocaust were not even allowed to participate in Nurenberg trials. The big powers had themselves suffered enormously at the hands of Nazi Germany were determined to punish the culprits. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, those powers began to compete with each other after the war in appeasing Turky for their own gains, despite their promises or threats during the war to punish Young Turk criminals. Those big powers do not act very differently today. Every time the Houses adopt a resolution acknowledging and condemning the Armenian Genocide, the US administration interferes at the eleventh hour to overturn the resolution, because Turkey is “an imortant Nato ally”. But the times can change, as we are witnessing, and Turkey may no longer be able to hold its cherished position as a spoiled brat of the Anglo-Saxon powers.

  5. this is interesting; i like to learn more about this history and these claims and what has happened and what laws and cases and precedents and legal principles are applicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.