If the bank failed prior to October 3, 2008, then you can't claim $250,000 coverage (12 CFR sec 330.1(n)).
That said, the only argument that would seem to fit the facts would be that the federal government has demonstrated administrative negligence, in its general management of the investment banking community, and "but for" that negligence your banking instution would not have failed. The most pervasive example of this negligence is the SEC's almost categorical failure to investigate claims by various sources into Madoff Investments. While this does not show a direct link to the failure of IndyMac, the SEC undoubtely failed similarly to regulate deriviative trading in mortgage securities, and that failure should be imputed to the Dept. of Treasury, which controls both the SEC and FDIC.
This is more than a policy failure. It shows that investigaton simply did not occur, regardless of the government's general mandate to regulate the investment and banking community.
What I'm getting at here is trying to make this a much bigger deal. Government is immune from making stupid policy decisions, but not from the failure to actually do what policy instructs. So, if you can show an endemic failure to regulate what the government was required by Congress to regulate, then you have a huge negligence action against the government that cannot be avoided under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
This would also be extremely scary to government regulators, and they might just pay you to shut up and go away.
Terms and Conditions: By your continuing in this conversation with me, or by your clicking “Accept”, you are expressly agreeing to all of the following: (1) our communication is for entertainment purposes only; (2) you are not consulting me in my professional capacity as an attorney; (3) you do not seek to establish an attorney-client relationship with me, nor do I with you; (4) you will not rely on anything I say and you will obtain appropriate legal counsel via a traditional/office consultation with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where your legal issue arises (and you may not use our communication to avoid taxpayer penalties imposed by the U.S. Dept. of Treasury); (5) by communicating with me in this public forum you are irrevocably waiving any right to privacy, confidentiality and attorney-client privilege concerning the matters discussed. You further separately declare that any payment made by you is not consideration for this contract, nor offered for any services rendered by me on your behalf, but rather is made in genuine admiration and respect for my desire to help others. If you do not agree with these terms and conditions, then you must advise me immediately.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).