- ‘Welcome to the edge of freedom’: Biden’s boots touch down in DMZ
- Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
Virginia ruling aids Alaska climate suit
Energy firm denied liability protection
The Virginia Supreme Court has handed down an unprecedented ruling on companies’ liability for global warming-related damages — a first-in-the-nation decision that could portend massive consequences for energy companies and environmental lawyers.
The ruling stems from an ongoing case in federal court, in which the Alaskan island town of Kivalina accused a handful of mostly U.S. energy companies of contributing to global warming, which it says has rendered the town uninhabitable. One of the energy companies named in the lawsuit, Arlington-based AES Corp., was then sued in Virginia by its insurance carrier, which objected to having to defend the company and possibly pay damages associated with global warming as part of a policy covering accidents.
“In this instance, the allegations of negligence do not support a claim of an accident,” Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn wrote in a 16-page opinion issued on April 20.
Some analysts say the opinion, the first of its kind on the subject, could set policy on an emerging issue of litigation for years to come.
Laura Foggan, a lawyer for the firm Wiley Rein LLP who filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association and the American Insurance Association, called it groundbreaking and said it shows companies can now be held liable for damage caused by global warming.
“Decades of releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere just doesn’t qualify as an accident,” she said.
“It’s one court, one set of facts, one set of policy language,” he said. “We’re just at the very beginning of the climate change coverage litigation. At the end of the day, there are people who are going to be negatively impacted by climate change, and they’re going to be looking for lawyers to mitigate their losses. It’s crazy to be allocating liability to some American power plant when the Chinese and Indian power plants are putting this stuff in the atmosphere as well.”
Mr. Donald noted the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed claims in another climate change liability case.
A spokesman for AES did not respond to a request for comment.
The federal lawsuit that sparked the Virginia Supreme Court case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in February 2008 by the native village of Kivalina and city of Kivalina against AES, Exxon Mobil and about 20 other energy and oil companies, The lawsuit says the companies damaged the village by causing global warming through emitting greenhouse gases. Kivalina is located on a small barrier reef off the northwest coast of Alaska.
The villagers argue that the companies “knew or should have known of the impacts of their emissions on global warming and on particularly vulnerable communities, such as coastal Alaskan villages. Despite this knowledge, defendants continued their substantial contributions to global warming.”
Kivalina dedicates 16 pages of its 69-page complaint to explaining global warming, while also charging a “civil conspiracy by power, coal and oil companies to mislead the public about the science of global warming.”
The court dismissed the case in 2009, but Kivalina appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case now resides.
In the interim, Steadfast, AES‘ insurance provider, brought action in Arlington County Circuit Court, claiming it did not owe the company defense or indemnity coverage because the particular damage either fell under exempted portions of its coverage agreement or happened when the two were not doing business together.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Buyers form trusts to get guns that are off-limits
- Support for stricter gun laws drops: poll
- Scientists could unlock mystery of life beyond Earth within a decade
- House Democrats give grudging support to 10-year gun ban extension
- Extending plastic gun ban just first step?
Latest Blog Entries
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- 'Dude, I'm dreading that I will have to go': Czech prime minister on Mandela funeral
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- Obama: Hole U.S. 'digging out of' requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- Legalizing illegal immigrants is the solution to Obamacare: Democrat
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Get in the middle of all the action inside and outside the boxing ring.
Opinion, analysis, and musings on politics, pop culture, reinvention, and the resultant flotsam and jetsam floating around the right-of-center quadrant of the Left Coast.
The cold hard truth about politics in America today and the state of this once great nation.
Find the latest news and happening that effect those in the Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Maryland Metro region.
White House pets gone wild!