Hillman v. Maretta
In brief
Federal law overrides Virginia's recovery rule, so Jacqueline Hillman cannot use it to recover the proceeds from Judy Maretta.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 3, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- Warren Hillman named his then-wife, Judy Maretta, as beneficiary of his federal life-insurance policy and did not change that designation after their divorce and his marriage to Jacqueline Hillman.
- Who it affects
- Virginia's Section D cannot make Judy Maretta pay the policy proceeds to Jacqueline Hillman.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with Virginia’s highest court that federal law overrides (preempts) the Virginia provision allowing Jacqueline, Warren’s widow, to seek the proceeds from Judy.
Warren Hillman kept Judy Maretta as the beneficiary after their divorce and later married Jacqueline Hillman. He had not changed the designation before he died.
FEGLIA governs federal employees' group life-insurance policies, while the Virginia provision addressed beneficiary designations after divorce.
Question presented
Does federal law preempt a Virginia state law that revokes a spouse's beneficiary designation in a Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance policy upon divorce?
What the Court decided
Holding
Section D of the Virginia statute is pre-empted by FEGLIA. 283 Va. 34, 722 S. E. 2d 32, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court concluded that federal law controls payment of the policy's proceeds and overrides Virginia's Section D, which would let Jacqueline seek them from Judy.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 7joined the Court's opinion
What's next
The Virginia Supreme Court's ruling remains in place, and the proceeds follow Warren Hillman's federal beneficiary designation.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Hillman
Opinion added: Hillman
More questions
- Why did Justices Thomas and Alito agree with the result?
- Thomas said the laws directly conflicted, while Alito focused on Warren's stated choice of beneficiary.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.