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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT