{
  "id": "RL32448",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32448",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104387,
      "date": "2004-06-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:13:47.548547",
      "title": "Holocaust-era Insurance Claims: Federal Court Decisions and State Statutes and Federal Legislative Proposals",
      "summary": "In  American Insurance Association v. Garamendi,  the United States Supreme Court\nstruck down\nCalifornia's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA), finding that it impermissibly\ninterfered with the President's conduct of foreign affairs. The challenged statute required insurance\ncompanies wishing to do business in California to disclose specified information concerning their\npolicy-writing activities in Europe during the Holocaust era, and those of their related, European\ninsurance companies; it was enacted by the state, one of many state statutes enacted to expedite the\nhandling of the Holocaust-era insurance claims, in an attempt to address perceived (and in many\ncases, documented) injustices in the (non)payment of certain Holocaust-era insurance claims. All\nwere enacted about the same time as the conclusion of several international agreements that (1)\naddressed problems involved in the settlement of Holocaust-era insurance claims and (2) created\nmechanisms for resolving those claims. These state laws, which vary greatly in their scope and\ncoverage, are summarized in an Appendix to this report. \n  Prior to the Supreme Court decision, there had been a split between two U.S. Courts of Appeals\nin which state Holocaust-related insurance statutes had been litigated. The Ninth Circuit, whose\ndecision was reversed in  Garamendi,  had upheld the California statute's disclosure\nprovisions; the\nEleventh Circuit had earlier struck down a similar Florida statute, reasoning that the requirement that\nU.S. insurance companies disclose information about the activities of their German affiliates violated\nthe Due Process rights of the U.S. companies. The status of similar provisions in other states'\ninsurance statutes is, as the result of the  Garamendi  decision, in question; either in\nanticipation of,\nor as a result of, the Court's 5-4 decision, several pieces of legislation have been introduced in the\n108th Congress to clarify that the state laws are permissible. The legislation is intended to (1)\nexpedite the settlement of Holocaust-era insurance claims and/or (2) provide greater structure and\nuniformity in the claims settlement process. \n  This report will discuss in detail the Supreme Court case and the lower court decisions that\npreceded it, providing only so much information on the background and history of the issue as is\nnecessary to an appreciation of the litigation. For further historical information is presented in detail,\nsee CRS Report RL30262 and CRS Report RL30396. Pertinent, pending congressional measures\nare summarized. As noted above, an appendix to this report provides, in chart form, summaries of\ncurrently existing state laws, including those containing provisions that are similar or identical to\nthose in HVIRA that were struck down.\n  This report will be updated upon further congressional action.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32448",
          "sha1": "99117b727fc1c756a4dc25e4df034be2ebeff3ad",
          "filename": "files/20040621_RL32448_99117b727fc1c756a4dc25e4df034be2ebeff3ad.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040621_RL32448_99117b727fc1c756a4dc25e4df034be2ebeff3ad.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}