It’s Hard to Sue the U.S. Government Without Its Permission
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmKgq2V4 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvtkjeER and at https://lnkd.in/ggtZrnDR and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
Roberta Jean Champlin appealed a decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her claim that the United States must pay damages for the nonpayment of life insurance proceeds from her deceased former husband’s Federal Employees Group Life Insurance policy.
In Roberta Jean Champlin v. United States, No. 2022-1402, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (April 10, 2023) Ms. Champlin sought payment of a Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy after he ex-husband died because her divorce decree granted her half ownership in the policy.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA) establishes a group life insurance program for federal employees. The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is responsible for managing FEGLI polices and has entered a contract with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) to provide insurance to federal employees.
FEGLI proceeds are to be paid in the following order of precedence: (1) designated beneficiaries; (2) widowed spouse; (3) children or descendants; (4) parents of deceased; (5) executor or administrator of the estate; and (6) next of kin.
The order of precedence can be overridden “if and to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation” but only if that order or decree is “received . . . before the date of the covered employee’s death, by the employing agency or, if the employee has separated from service, by the [OPM].” When these circumstances are met, the proceeds “shall be paid (in whole or in part) by the [OPM]” to the individual who is entitled to the proceeds under the court order.
Factual & Procedural Background
Lewis Dean Champlin, during and after his marriage to Ms. Champlin, had life insurance through a FEGLI policy. In September 2012, the Champlins divorced. As part of their divorce proceedings, Ms. Champlin obtained from the Alaskan state divorce court “award[ed Ms. Champlin] the option to continue maintaining a one-half interest in that policy . . . [while Mr. Champlin] ha[d] the option of paying the other half of the policy and c[ould] designate whoever he chooses to be beneficiary to the other half of the policy benefits.” Ms. Champlin paid for half of the policy thereafter.
On January 3, 2016, Mr. Champlin died. Ms. Champlin did not receive her half of the proceeds of his life insurance policy. Instead the proceeds were paid to Mr. Champlin’s designated beneficiary at the time of his death-Marilyn Susano.
Ms. Champlin sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that she is entitled to half of Mr. Champlin’s issued life insurance coverage and further requesting a judgment directing the United States to pay her half of the FEGLI proceeds, along with costs and attorney fees. Unfortunately for Ms. Champlin the complaint failed to allege a statutory or legal basis for jurisdiction for her claim.
The government moved to dismiss Ms. Champlin’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that FEGLI-related claims cannot be against the United States because the government has not waived its sovereign immunity for such claims.
The OPM authorized MetLife to provide life insurance, and MetLife established an administrative office, which is responsible for administering FEGLI claims. The Court of Federal Claims noted that it found that Ms. Champlin’s complaint made no claim for a breach of a legal duty, only a claim to obtain money due under the FEGLI policy.
DISCUSSION
The Court of Federal Claims’ determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Champlin’s claim for life insurance proceeds from Mr. Champlin’s FEGLI policy was correct.
The Federal Circuit concluded that Court of Federal Claims is a court of specific jurisdiction and can resolve only those claims for which the United States has waived sovereign immunity.
The government’s duties under the statute are limited to contracting with and managing private insurance companies that issue FEGLIA-compliant insurance to federal employees, as well as implementing regulations to support the FEGLIA’s statutory mandates.”
Because the United States’ duties under the FEGLIA and relevant regulations do not extend to claims for proceeds due under a FEGLI policy, Ms. Champlin has failed to establish that the United States has breached any duty when insurance proceeds are allegedly due.
Ms. Champlin sought money that she believes is due to her under the policy because she complied with a divorce court’s order. The fact that the policy had already been paid out to another beneficiary before Ms. Champlin became aware of her alleged injury had no effect on the regulation’s application. The Court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ZALMA OPINION
Ms. Champlin sued the wrong party. The US had no obligation under the FIGLIA statute and did not waive its sovereign immunity. She could have sued MetLife but did not. Alaska’s court order could not compel the US to do anything and if anything her case is against the ex-husband’s estate for not complying with the Alaska Order to make her a designated beneficiary. The payment was made to a designated beneficiary so MetLife did what it was required to do. A person can only sue the government if it waives its sovereign immunity. Since it did not do so she had no case.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
(c) 2023 ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
