The case of the day is Francisco S. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. (D. Utah 2020). Francisco S. was an employee of the World Bank. The Bank provided him with health benefits under a self-funded employee benefits plan. Aetna was the third-party administrator. Aetna denied a claim submitted for Francisco’s daughter, and Francisco sued Aetna and the World Bank plan.
The case of the day is Jam v. International Finance Corp. (S. Ct. 2019). I wrote about the lower court decision back in June 2017. The claim was that the IFC, an international organization headquartered in Washington, had made loans to an Indian power company for construction of a coal-fired power plant in Gujarat, but that it had negligently failed to supervise the project. Local farmers and fishermen, and a local village, sued IFC in Washington on common law tort theories. The IFC moved to dismiss on the grounds that it was immune from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act. The District Court and the D.C. Circuit held that IFC was indeed immune from suit, and the plaintiffs sought review in the Supreme…
The Supreme Court heard argument yesterday in Jam v. International Finance Corp. I wrote about the case last year. The issue in the case is simple. Under DC Circuit precedent construing the International Organizations Immunities Act, international organizations have immunity from suit to the same extent that foreign sovereigns had it in 1945, at the time of the enactment of the IOIA. Should the statute instead be construed to mean that international organizations have immunity from suit to the same extent that foreign sovereign have it today? In practice, the question seems to be: should international organizations be immune from suit for their commercial activities in the United States?
Tagged: IOIA