- Al Sharpton, Trayvon Martin’s parents rally against Fla. ‘stand your ground’ law
- Hillary Clinton campaign got illicit funds from D.C. scandal figure
- Obama administration backs off plan to cut prescription-drug program
- Tickets linked to stolen passports purchased by Iranian middleman
- More than 3,500 police planned for Boston Marathon
- Ottawa day care suspends 2-year-old for ‘outside’ cheese sandwich
- Liam Neeson tells NYC mayor to ‘man up’ in horse carriage fight
- Real-life Dr. Doolittle to reveal how to talk to animals
- Climate change could bring back smallpox, researchers say
- Shoe-bomb witness to speak from London at N.Y. trial
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 2014 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 email@example.com.
- CPAC 2014: Presidential support for Carson rises
- Palin dings Obama, calls for conservative reinforcements in Washington
- CPAC 2014: Carson 'not sure' what God has in store for him
- CPAC 2014: Gingrich says it's time for a 'big rebellion on the battlefield of ideas'
- CPAC 2014: Bachmann says country will elect 'right' female president
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Stunt raises carbon-dioxide level with lots of hot air
- Hillary Clinton campaign received funds from Jeffrey Thompson
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Senate Democrats, Republicans spar over restoring unemployment benefits
- Depth, distance reduce impact of California quake
- Mitch McConnell on beating tea party: 'We are going to crush them'
- SAUERBREY: Taxing Marylanders until they flee
- Atheists sue to remove 'Ground Zero Cross' from 9/11 museum
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS after months of talks
- CARNES: Kissinger's flawed and offensive analysis of Ukraine
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again