This Act establishes a federal right for beneficiaries of Holocaust-era insurance policies to sue in federal court, overriding prior federal foreign policy preemption of state disclosure laws.
David Kustoff
Representative
TN-8
The Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act of 2025 restores the ability of states to enforce laws requiring insurers to disclose information about Holocaust-era policies. This Act creates a new federal right for beneficiaries to sue in federal court to collect on these policies, overriding previous federal preemption claims. Furthermore, it establishes a uniform 10-year statute of limitations for filing such claims under both state and federal law.
The newly proposed Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act of 2025 is a major legislative move aimed at resolving decades-old claims related to insurance policies purchased between January 31, 1933, and December 31, 1945, in territories controlled by or allied with Nazi Germany. Essentially, this bill creates a new, powerful federal path for beneficiaries—survivors and heirs—to finally collect on these policies.
For years, efforts by states to force insurance companies to disclose information about these policies and pay claims have often been blocked by federal courts. The key legal hurdle was the 2002 Supreme Court decision, American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, which argued that federal foreign policy interests preempted (overruled) state laws on this matter. This Act explicitly reverses that. Under SEC. 2 and SEC. 6, the bill states clearly that federal foreign policy or executive agreements cannot override state laws that require insurers to disclose information or that allow people to sue over these specific 'covered policies.' This is a massive shift, effectively empowering state insurance regulators and opening the door for claims that were previously blocked.
The most significant change is the creation of a new federal private right of action in SEC. 4. If you are a beneficiary of one of these covered policies (life, property, annuity, etc.) and the insurer won't pay, you can now file a lawsuit directly in U.S. federal court. This is a game-changer because it bypasses the old preemption defense. When the court hears the case, it will use either the state law where the suit is filed or federal common law to decide the outcome.
If the beneficiary wins, the insurer must pay the full policy amount plus interest, calculated at 6% per year, compounded annually, from the date the money was originally due. But here’s the kicker: if the court finds the insurer acted in “bad faith” in handling the claim, the court must award treble damages—three times the amount owed. Plus, the winning beneficiary gets their attorney’s fees paid by the insurance company. This provision creates a huge financial incentive for insurers to resolve these claims fairly and quickly, rather than dragging them out in court.
To ensure these decades-old issues finally get resolved, SEC. 2 and SEC. 8 set a firm, uniform statute of limitations. Whether you are bringing a claim under this new federal right or an existing state law, you have exactly 10 years from the date this Act becomes law to file your lawsuit. This means survivors and heirs have a clear window to act, and it also means that the insurance industry will face a defined period of liability, after which these claims cannot be brought.
What about people who already settled? SEC. 5 addresses this by stating that previous court judgments or settlement agreements generally cannot be used to block a new claim under this Act, provided those past agreements were based on the assumption that state claims were preempted by federal foreign policy. There’s one key exception: if a claimant received payment from the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC) and signed an agreement, that agreement stands—unless the payment was specifically designated as "humanitarian" aid. If the payment was humanitarian, the beneficiary can still pursue a claim under this new law. This aims to protect those who settled under duress or based on flawed legal assumptions, while still respecting legitimate, non-humanitarian settlements.