Skip to comments.Climate change lawsuits filed against some 200 US communities
Posted on 05/17/2014 8:42:41 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Farmers Insurance. Run by Torte lawyers. Disgusting.
Reminder. Never insure with Farmers.
It will force the governments to embrace the skeptics and say there is no man caused climate change, or that the change is not significant.
After some hesitation, I say good on you, Farmers.
So farmers Insurance has proof that the climate is warming? If so, they should have increased their rates.
SCOTUS is responsible for this, in some measure. Their ruling gave the enviroNazis legal standing.
“Farmers Insurance filed nine class actions last month against nearly 200 communities in the Chicago area”
We have a local scumbag lawyer that files near frivolous claims under the disabilities act. It is a total shakedown operation. This sounds like something he would do. Way to go Farmers. If anyone doubted you were scumbags before this should remove any doubt.
Tort reform - now more than ever.
This is absolutely ridiculous!! How can anyone “know” what the weather will be? Even the weather people get it wrong more than right. As to “know” based on climate change, I hope the judge throws this out since the basic premise “man made climate change” is a hoax. If this goes through, how many other insurance companies will refuse to pay saying the insurer “should have known” and taken appropriate precautions?
You are probably referencing their ruling that the epa may regulate CO2. Too bad there aren’t any scientist on the panel. Coming soon, regulating the amount of solar radiation you may legally absorb in a given time period. Want some extra rays? You can buy some.
Here we go, legislating science - that is what put Galileo behind bars for the later years of his life. Imagine...insisting that the earth is not flat!
I’m not a lawyer, but I think this is a smart move by the insurance company. Could be wrong. But, Farmers is looking at weather damage which normally would be considered an Act of God. “Climate change” redefines these as Acts of Man. That could change insurable risks the company has to pay and they are simply trying to find out their legal liability.
Again, I ain’t a lawyer.
Will Farmer’s now remove “Act of God” as an excuse from paying off on a claim?
Yes, Obama's gubmint told them so.
I say go for it.
That’s the one!
When reading the article I had to make sure this was not satire.
I reminds me of a joke I heard on the radio. A church group had gathered outside a bar to pray for its removal. Soon after the bar burned down. The owner of the bar sued the church. The church denied their prayers had anything to do with it. The judge says, “I don’t know who to believe, the bar owner who believes in God, or the church that doesn’t.”
That’s probably not word-for-word, but it is the best I can remember.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is Farmers not State Farm.
Wait the judge cannot throw this out, its govt policy that you believe as they do.
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?