The Tip of the Iceberg: Environmental Damages Fines
N.Y. Reaches Agreements With 4 More ‘Force-Placed’ Insurers 
Tiny Southern California Agency Earns B Corp Status
The Art of Communication in the Modern Era, All Is Not Lost
Regulators Examining Insurers’ Cyber Security Readiness
Immigrant Driver’s Licenses Signed in Colorado
E&O Insights: Why Personal Umbrellas Generate Claims
10 Things to Know About Entertainment, Sports & Special EventsFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
Very interesting case. One would think that there would be a bunch of CGL exclusions would exclude such claims for damages. So,while you wait for the decision, underwriters better tighten up on their wordings or they will be faced with a Lawyers Paradise in the next several years.
so if alaska is claiming damage and the case is in VA supreme court how is that logical? will this allow alaska to lay claim to any company? global warming can be caused by the emissions of a personal vehicle… so, are you going to sue them as well? this is just a waste of the court time and energy…
You are confusing the cases. The Village of Kivalina, Alaska is suing AES, an energy company based in Virginia.
In a separate lawsuit, AES sued its insurer, Steadfast seeking coverage under the policy issued to AES. It’s a Virginia insured suing its insurer over a contract issued in Virginia. So Virginia makes perfectly logical sense to determine the rights and liabilites under the insurance contract.
Why do people who have no idea what they are talking about, have no idea what cases are about, have not read the Complaint or supporting documents, not heard any evidence or read any deposition testimony, why do these people so often declare that the case is a waste of the court’s time and energy?
A fat tick on a slim hound………..
As I recall, the definition of “occurrence” includes repeated exposure to events. More importantly, however, is the idea that a case like this can even make it to court. How does one prove specific damages from emissions? Also, like another commentor said, we are in real trouble if everyone who contributes any form of emissions to the atmosphere, such as driving a car, is exposed to a global warming lawsuit. We might just as well all go live in huts, which, I fear, is what many extreme environmentalists want us to do anyway. Let’s see, people were healthier back then – with all the fires used for cooking and warmth, not to mention disseases that have long since been eradicated by modern medicine? Oh, I forgot, there were fewer people back then, so I guess those emissions weren’t as much an issue. But, imagine those emissions if we all had to regress to a primitive lifestyle?
exactly right, i think we might find some idiot sueing mankind! what? sound strange – don’t think so because lawyers would find a way to get their hands on this and make more money in the lap. more money means more spending which means more production which means more — fumes of exhaust… did we finally say it warmed up today?!
I say let the lawyers sue and make as much money as they can…….and give them tax breaks too because these are the people who are going to become succesful (good for them) and then they (the lawyers) create the much needed jobs in our economy (good for us)…..right????? LOL.
you know the funny thing we talk about emissions…. um… anyone going to sue NASCAR? afterall, they have a dedicated season of drivers who love to puff fumes into the air in a variety of vehicles….
Rusty: If people were healthier when they were hut dwellers, why did they have such short life expectancies? Maybe it was all of those saber tooth tigers that got ‘em.
Virginia thou art crazy. A CGL needing to provide defense to insured for global warming? I could see if the utility had an environmental policy, but the cost of defending such a suit under the CGL would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. How many insurers will go under, if this lawsuit goes ahead? Hey Other, what plaintiff firm are you with or are you a potential litigant?
What in my comment suggested I took sides? All I did was explain why Virginia is the proper forum to resolve a coverage dispute for a Virginia policyholder seeking coverage under a policy issued in Virginia.
Why is Virginia crazy? The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that there is no coverage. They’ve agreed to reconsider their decision, but that doesn’t mean they will definitely reverse it.
I’m not a plaintiffs lawyer nor do I have a dog in the fight. I just can’t stomach idiotic comments like “it’s a waste of the court’s time and energy” when the commenter has no idea what he is talking about.
This forum has so many knee jerk reactors who don’t stop to think. They jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. And then when confronted with the facts, they don’t care, but stick to their moronic arguments.
OPV:
The last part of that paragraph rings true for you as well, as I remember from one of your recent enviromental posts you used broad generalizations which I proved untrue with very specific EPA requirements with one particular president versus another, in addition to a funding that one president went for in order to go for a no waste energy source which another cut. I further disproved your deregulation comment with a regulatory bill. But…You still go on your belief that republicans are against anything concerning emissions checks, and regulatory affairs. *shrugs*
You’re well researched but practicality wise well…That’s another story. And yes. You do take sides. Whichever would be defending the government or liberal side you always defend. I don’t really like your posts here as most seem to be a way of finding ways to dominate someone else, prove them wrong, say how child like they are, and very few seem to be with concern for the issues that are important in this country.
Dear Other-your use of the terms, idiotic, moronic or knee jerk to comment on other posters is not helpful to the discussion. Frankly, many of the comments for this venue are well above the postings to be seen elsewhere on internet forums. When you focus on the issues, I include you in my comments as to well above average.
The fact that Virginia is even considering further argument on a CGL policy which you may not be familiar with, is the reason for my characterization. Courts even considering cases like this put a tremendous burden upon business which creates a major disincentive to job creation which we are sorely in need of.
I beleive the courts were right in their opinion and the village should prevail . To many lawyers trying to split hairs.
Wow…Al Gore must be LOVING this…he’s one of the moron’s that got this whole global warming issue going. NEWS FLASH FOLKS!! GLOBAL WARMING HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!