American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi

Last updated
American Insurance Association v. Garamendi
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 23, 2003
Decided June 23, 2003
Full case nameAmerican Insurance Association v. Garamendi
Citations539 U.S. 396 ( more )
123 S. Ct. 2374; 156 L. Ed. 2d 376; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4797
Case history
PriorMotion for summary judgment denied, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 296 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002); cert. granted, 537 U.S. 1100(2003).
SubsequentRehearing denied, 539 U.S. 982(2003).
Holding
A state statute requiring insurance companies to go public with some of their records in foreign countries in order to "facilitate Holocaust-era insurance claims" by the state's residents is unconstitutional because it interferes with the federal government's sovereignty over foreign affairs.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajoritySouter, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer
DissentGinsburg, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I
Cal. Ins. Code Ann. §§13800-13807 (Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act of 1999)

American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a California law that required any insurance company wishing to do business in the state to publish information regarding insurance policies held by persons in Europe from 1920 through 1945. [1]

Contents

Background

The Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) was enacted in 1999 by the California State Legislature in "an attempt to facilitate Holocaust-era insurance claims by California residents." The law required that insurance companies in California that sold policies to people in Europe between 1920 and 1945 to go public with the records of their work during that time, "including the names of policy owners and the status of the policies." American Insurance, along with several other insurance companies and trade associations filed suit claiming that the Act exceeded the powers of the State of California since it is the federal government that has the power to regulate commerce and foreign affairs. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, [2] however the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. [3]

Question before the Supreme Court

Does the HVIRA "interfere with the federal government's sovereignty over foreign affairs established by Article 1 of the Constitution?" [4]

Decision of the Court

In a 5-4 decision in favor of American Insurance Association, Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court. The Court held that California's HVIRA "interfere with the president's ability to conduct the nation's foreign policy and is therefore preempted." [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), was a copyright and trademark case of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the applicability of the Lanham Act to a work in the public domain.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the policy of United States federal courts would be to honor the Act of State Doctrine, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the United States.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993), was a controversial United States Supreme Court case which held that foreign companies acting in foreign countries could nevertheless be held liable for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act if they conspired to restrain trade within the United States, and succeeded in doing so.

Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), is a U.S. corporate law decision by the United States Supreme Court. It held that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Of greater consequence, the Court further held that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce," effectively removing the business of insurance beyond the United States Congress's legislative reach.

Insurance law is the practice of law surrounding insurance, including insurance policies and claims. It can be broadly broken into three categories - regulation of the business of insurance; regulation of the content of insurance policies, especially with regard to consumer policies; and regulation of claim handling.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.

The American Insurance Association (AIA) is an insurance industry trade association representing about 300 insurance companies that provide property insurance and/or casualty insurance in the United States.

Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957), was a case following in the line of decisions interpreting International Shoe v. Washington. The Court declared that California did not violate the due process clause by entering a judgment upon a Texas insurance company who was engaged in a dispute over a policy it maintained with a California resident. The importance of this finding is highlighted by the facts of the case; mainly that International Life Insurance did no other business within the state of California besides maintaining this single policy, which the company became responsible for by its acquisition of another insurance company which previously had held the policy. However; the case never explicitly stated that no other business was conducted within California and the previous assumption is presumptive by definition.

Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated an Oregon statute for unconstitutionally intruding into the federal realm of foreign affairs even though the statute did not conflict with any federal treaty or statute.

Insurance in the United States refers to the market for risk in the United States, the world's largest insurance market by premium volume. Of the $4.640 trillion of gross premiums written worldwide in 2013, $1.274 trillion (27%) were written in the United States.

Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") overrules state laws declaring that certain disputes must be resolved by a state administrative agency.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1.) public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights; 2.) The Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.

Kenneth Geller

Kenneth Steven Geller is Managing Partner of the global law firm Mayer Brown LLP and a former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and Assistant Special Prosecutor in the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known as Alliance for Open Society I, was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.

American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641 (2013), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain regulations imposed by City of Los Angeles on trucking companies were preempted by federal law. In 2006 the Board of Harbor Commissioners for Los Angeles, California adopted an environmental protection plan that included an effort called Clean Truck Program (CTP). The stated goal of the program is to "reduce negative impacts that port [trucking] inflicts on the local community." The implementation of this program began in 2007 and required trucking companies to comply with various requirements relating to maintenance of trucks, employment of drivers, and trucking operations. The American Trucking Associations believed some of the regulations were in violation of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) and filed suit. Litigation eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the Court held that two of the requirements of the CTP were in violation of the FAAAA.

Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a ninety-day period is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.

Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a lawsuit by the Direct Marketing Association trade group about a Colorado law regarding reporting the state's tax requirements to customers and to the Colorado Department of Revenue is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act. While the case was reheard and found in favor of Colorado, the concurrence of Justice Anthony Kennedy provided a means for states to bring a challenge the ruling of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which has prevented states from collecting taxes from out-of-state vendors.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

References

  1. 1 2 American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003).
  2. Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Low, 186F. Supp. 2d1099 (E.D. Cal.2001).
  3. Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Low, 296F.3d832 (9th Cir.2002).
  4. "American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi - 539 U.S. 396 (2003)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 29 December 2013.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)