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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.