Climate change lawsuits filed against some 200 US communities

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 17, 2014 | By Mica Rosenberg

[Oldeconomybuyer]

A major insurance company is accusing dozens of localities in Illinois of failing to prepare for severe rains and flooding in lawsuits that are the first in what could be a wave of litigation over who should be liable for the possible costs of climate change.

Farmers Insurance filed nine class actions last month against nearly 200 communities in the Chicago area. It is arguing that local governments should have known rising global temperatures would lead to heavier rains and did not do enough to fortify their sewers and stormwater drains.

The legal debate may center on whether an uptick in natural disasters is foreseeable or an "act of God."

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Will Farmer’s now remove “Act of God” as an excuse from paying off on a claim?

Not as I read this. What Farmers is saying is if one believes in man-made climate change then future risks from weather events are "foreseeable", and therefore unless the cities upgrade their sewers, etc. Farmers may not pay claims. It's a vicious cycle based on a hoax.

[cripplecreek]

So basically rather than doing what an insurance company normally does and withdraws from insuring the uninsurable, Farmers is going to sue them to make themselves insurable to a new standard.

I’m guessing Farmers has already noted which contractors will do the work and insures them now or hopes to insure them in the future.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

How did Farmers determine that the “climate change” they claim is the ignored peril would result in *more* rather than *fewer* weather-related hazards? “Change” is equivocal; it can mean...anything. For sure, I am relying on the second-hand use of the word “change” in the article and do not know whether that word was used in the suit(s). I’d be surprised if this goes anywhere but IANAL nor a judge nor a paid-off member of any class.

[DManA]

This deserves a big ping. It might be the most important story this year. It opens up a whole new front in the battle against the AGW religionists.

[CdMGuy]

Next month I will be soliciting quotes for my homeowners, auto and umbrella policies. In view of State Farm’s actions, I will not even consider them.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

This is Farmers not State Farm.

[ully2]

Wait the judge cannot throw this out, its govt policy that you believe as they do.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'd suggest that there were indications of that with the Kelo decision, too.

With Kelo, SCOTUS essentially rolled the dice and bet that since the New London redevelopment plan would guarantee increased tax revenues for the city, they could justify redefinging the 5th amendment "public use" into what was not written in the Constitution, "public good."

They rolled snake eyes.

Now SCOTUS has bet on the weather, too?

-PJ

[Humal]

:-)