No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Federal Preemption of California Statute on Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 March 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2003
References
1 For background, see Murphy, Sean D., United States Practice in International Law, 1999–2001, at 145–47 (2002)Google Scholar.
2 Agreement Concerning Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, Oct. 16, 2002, at <http://www.state.gov>.
3 Cal. Ins. Code §§13800–13807 (2000).
4 See Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Low, 240 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding HVIRA not to violate the federal foreign affairs power or the Commerce Clause); Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Low, 296 F.3d832(9thCir. 2002) (finding that HVIRA did not violate procedural due process and reaffirming its prior ruling).
5 Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 123 S.Ct. 2374, 2386 (2003).
6 Id. at 2386–87
7 Id. at 2387 (footnote omitted).
8 Id. at 2388.
9 389 U.S. 429 (1968).
10 123 S.Ct. at 2390. For other cases in U.S. courts concerning Holocaust-era insurance claims, see Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation, 228 F.Supp.2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding that ICHEIC was not an adequate foreign forum for purposes of forum non conveniens); Anderman v. Austria, 256 F.Supp.2d 1098 (CD. Cal. 2003) (finding that claims falling within the ICHEIC claims procedure related to the executive’s foreign affairs power, and that judicial action on them would evince a lack of respect for the political branches and raise the possibility of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various branches).