Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Supreme Court won't hear global warming case

Reprints

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday not to review a pivotal global warming case brought by coastal residents seeking damages for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.

In Ned Comer et al. vs. Murphy Oil USA et al., a group of Mississippi property owners alleged that greenhouse gas emissions of Murphy Oil USA—through more than 100 oil, coal and chemical companies—contributed to climate change and furthered the property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The plaintiffs sought damages under Mississippi common law, including public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence allegations.

A federal district court in Mississippi dismissed the assertions on grounds that they presented a political question that could not be decided by the courts. However, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the lower court's ruling in October 2009 and allowed the claims to proceed.

The defendants in the case sought an en banc hearing by the full 5th Circuit, which was granted, an action that automatically vacated the panel decision. However, after eight of the circuit's 16 standing judges recused themselves from the case citing conflicts of interest, the court lost its quorum and voted 5-3 last summer to dismiss the appeal, letting the district court's dismissal stand.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal involving another global warming case brought under nuisance law, American Electric Power Co. Inc. et al. vs. State of Connecticut et al., in which a coalition of states, environmental groups and New York state sued several of the nation's largest coal-burning utilities, alleging that their carbon dioxide emissions led to beach erosion, droughts and floods.

These are both pivotal cases that use public nuisance law to address climate change risks. Both have been identified by lawyers as the cases to watch to determine whether the courts ultimately will decide how climate change risks and losses are addressed.