ILNews

Federal act preempts state law claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act preempts state law claims brought by a man’s first ex-wife seeking to keep her and her grandchildren as beneficiaries of the man’s life insurance policy.

In Phyllis Hardy, et al. v. Mary Jo Hardy,  No. 51A01-1005-PL-248, Phyllis Hardy filed a complaint, on her behalf and the behalf of her two grandchildren, for declaratory judgment/constructive trust over insurance proceeds. Phyllis was married to Carlos Hardy for 30 years and when they divorced, the decree stated that Phyllis and their two grandchildren shall be designated as equal beneficiaries of his FEGLI policy. Carlos later remarried to Mary Jo and he designated her as the beneficiary on his policy by submitting a designation of beneficiary form. Carlos and Mary Jo divorced seven years later, and when he died a year after their divorce, Mary Jo was named the beneficiary of the $98,000 policy.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Mary Jo and denied Phyllis’ motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that federal law preempted state law and that FEGLIA barred the creation of a constructive trust and seizure of the life insurance proceeds or any portion thereof from Mary Jo.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that FEGLIA preempts the plaintiffs’ state law claims. Phyllis cited a majority of state courts addressing this issue that have concluded that an equitable claim for constructive trust and some other claims under state law aren’t preempted by FEGLIA.

The FEGLIA contains a preemption clause that says the provisions under any contract of this chapter which related to the coverage or benefits shall supersede and preempt state law or regulation issued thereunder that relates to group life insurance to the extent that the law or regulation is inconsistent with the contractual provisions. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Christ, 979 F.2d 575, 578 (7th Cir. 1992), held that this clause broadly preempts any state law that is inconsistent with the FEGLIA master policy.

FEGLIA also states that the beneficiary of the policy would be paid first, but a domestic decree could alter that order. To do so, a certified copy must be sent to the Office of Personnel Management before the policy holder’s death. Carlos didn’t send the divorce decree to the office.

The judges also relied on the Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 102 S. Ct. 49 (1981), to affirm the trial court’s ruling. Ridgway dealt with the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Act and held that the beneficiary’s designation prevailed over a constructive trust which a state court imposed on the policy proceeds.

“While the Plaintiffs cite opinions from some of our sister states, we find the approach taken by the Seventh Circuit and numerous federal and state courts to be the more compelling approach. Accordingly, we conclude that FEGLIA preempts the Plaintiffs’ state law claims,” wrote Judge Elaine Brown.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT