WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether insurers must provide information on policies written in Nazi-dominated Europe from 1920-1945 under California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act.
A group of American and foreign insurance companies are challenging the requirements as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court accepted the challenge Friday and should hear argument in the case in April.
On the international front, the United States and a group of nations have formed a commission to resolve claims by Holocaust victims. Payments are to come from funds contributed by insurers, the German government and private industry.
In return, the insurers point out, the United States has agreed to help insurance companies achieve "legal peace" in this country, "including protection against state legislative and regulatory action."
However, the California Legislature passed the Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act, or HVIRA, in 1999 to provide information that would help in suits against insurers.
The act requires insurance companies licensed to do business in California to provide information on policies written in Nazi-dominated Europe for two and a half decades.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, the insurers' group said a number of foreign governments have lodged protests with the U.S. courts.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in Atlanta, has struck down a similar law in Florida, the insurers told the Supreme Court. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in San Francisco, has upheld California's law.
A 9th Circuit panel ruled last summer that the law passes muster on a number of constitutional fronts.
In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, the insurance companies maintain HVIRA violates international agreements, and the due process or fair treatment guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
"Under this (law's) scheme, a California insurer that was established in 2001 would be forced to pay a civil claim arising from a 1921 insurance policy," the companies told the Supreme Court, "so long as the European entity that issued the policy is now a corporate 'parent, subsidiary, re-insurer, successor in interest, managing general agent, or affiliate' of the California insurer."
A brief filed by the Justice Department supports the companies. "Both the (Constitution's) commerce clause," which gives Congress the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, "and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment prohibit a state from regulating activity from outside its borders," the department brief said.
But a brief filed by lawyers for California Insurance Commissioner Harry Low argued that the appeals court ruling does not conflict with any Supreme Court precedent, or the precedents "of any other federal courts."
(No. 02-722, American Insurance Association et al vs. Commissioner Low)
