![farmers[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/farmers1.jpg?quality=83)
From the Insurance Journal:
Insurer mysteriously withdraws high-profile lawsuit for climate damages in Chicago flooding case
Farmers Insurance Co. has withdrawn its lawsuit against Chicago for climate-related flooding, marking an abrupt end to a novel legal claim that had tantalized observers with its prospects for pushing cities to act against climate change.
The company filed for dismissal Tuesday after its case against dozens of municipalities in the Chicago area gained national media attention and no short amount of criticism from local officials, who warned that taxpayers would shoulder the cost of the class-action suit.
A spokesman for Farmers said in a statement that the company reversed course after the lawsuit successfully caught the attention of municipalities, which the company had accused of mismanaging their stormwater systems. The lawsuit claimed that 600 homes were damaged during a downpour in April 2013 after local officials allegedly failed to drain underground storm tunnels and deploy protective barriers. It also said the officials failed to account for heavier rainfall from global warming.
Source: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060000761
Hmmm, they filed a lawsuit to elevate awareness? I’m not buying it.
Chances are some corporate weasel halfwit came to his/her senses and realized three things:
1) They can’t absolutely link severe weather events leading to flooding and climate change, so their lawsuit was unwinnable. See the data below.
Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.
Percent of US streamguages above “bankfull streamflow” defined as the highest daily mean streamflow value expected to occur, on average, once in every 2.3 years. Source: USGS
Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.
Annual flood losses have decreased from about 0.2% of US GDP to <0.05% since 1940. Flood loss data from NOAA Hydrologic Information Center.
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. for those graphs.
2) The bad press they were getting probably was projected to cost more than they could recover.
3) The reason insurance is purchased at all is to CYA in unforseen circumstances, including “acts of God”. For Farmers Insurance Group to put the onus of being prepared for all such contingencies is counter-intuitive for the need to purchase insurance at all.
The lesson from Farmers was “Why buy insurance from us at all? If you do and you don’t meet our retroactively applied arbitrary and unscientific risk standards, we’ll just sue you to get the money back”.
Idiots.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anyone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton?
If you haven’t, you should.
Very informative.
I’m reminded of ambulance chaser advertising so common now.
Heart attack and stroke are now “injuries”.
‘
Good Old Farmers Insurance Group! “Get’s you back where you belong”….Out of La-La Land.
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
If the insurance companies force small towns and village to prepare for global warming, and Mother Nature decided she wants 20-30 years of cooling, who gets sued?
How many town/city/county councils have adopted feel-good, get-on-board climate plans, believing that it was free and there was no down side – just more votes from their simpleton constituents? I’m amused that Farmers would call them on it. In that sense, I would have liked to see them win. Creating consequences for politicians is a good thing. Maybe their suit will shut some of them up.
The Insurance industry along with Nuclear and ‘Big’ Energy has been an tacit friend of CAGW for a long time now. It would be interesting to know how much funding support for ‘research’ into future climate patterns etc have come from companies like Zurich.
Today I watched a NOVA show about fractals. It was interesting and informative until the last ten minutes which was all about figuring the fractals of jungle trees to figure out how much CO2 the trees consumed.
‘This will save us from global warming’ exclaimed the young scientists who obviously got a nifty trip to Brazil by petitioning for money from the government about global warming.
This has infected ALL the biological sciences. They are all rushing to claim global warming will kill all corals or turtles or polar bears, etc. etc. Moths in Norway, even! It never ends. This is all out of control at this point.
The environmental left is about to launch its second wave of national law suits, this time one in each state and in state courts. They intend to use children as plaintiffs. They will, however, face the same problem as Farmers, they will not be able to show by a fair proponderance of the evidence that CO2 is the proximate cause of anything that could harm children associated with climate change.
much made out of this report by Australian MSM & Guardian this week:
5 June: Guardian: Helen Davidson: Homebuyers must factor in climate change, warns Australian watchdog
Consumer and climate experts say extreme weather could raise insurance premiums and lower property values
Buyers must beware as climate change threatens to increase insurance premiums and lower property values, Australia’s Climate Institute and the consumer watchdog Choice have warned…
The organisations said the lack of information from governments and insurance companies was leaving homebuyers and owners at risk.
“Councils should be providing better information about historical climate data about whether a property is at risk, and what they think about some of the future risks might be,” the Climate Institute’s chief executive, John Connor, told Guardian Australia.
“And there are some basics, such as the full range of hazard mapping, that we know some local governments have got and which should be publicly available. But they’re not,” he said…
***The report made a number of recommendations to buyers, insurers and governments, including mandated disclosure of all available hazard mapping…
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) agreed with some recommendations to governments, but not those to insurers, which included adding “policy options to include climate-exacerbated risks including erosion, soil contraction and actions of the sea”…
However, the council disagreed with the recommendation the government “disclose current and projected insurance premiums for a property at the point of sale, based on independent metrics (such as those presented in this report)”…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/04/home-buyers-must-factor-in-climate-change-warns-australian-watchdog
***dated 7 June, NBC ends this nonsense by repeating the false China narrative which was corrected on 3rd June:
7 June: NBC: Heesun Wee: From Beer to Insurance: Businesses Bet on Climate Change
So SABMiller had an idea for Mozambique. The London-based company would manufacture a brew with one of Africa’s most widely available crops — the cassava…
Also known as yuca, the root resembles a potato. SABMiller would support local, sustainable farming. There was just one problem.
Yuca rots quickly. “In practice, it’s a nightmare,” said Andres Penate, a spokesman for SABMiller. So the brewer helped create a mobile unit that’s used to process the crop on the farm. The first commercial scale, cassava-based beer — called “Impala” — was launched about three years ago. The project today helps cassava farmers earn income, some for the first time…
Recent reports show human-induced climate change already is being felt. Water is more scarce. There’s more rain. Heat waves are growing in frequency and severity. Wildfires are intensifying…
Gap, for example, absorbed higher cotton costs after precipitation and drought changes in China, according to the carbon project report…
Among S&P 500 companies, on average 4 percent of their annual capital expenditure has been allocated to lower emissions, according to the report. The capital expenditure ranged from less than 1 percent for consumer product companies to 23 percent for utilities, which use a lot of water…
Based in Zurich, global reinsurer Swiss Re has been involved in the climate debate since the 1980s. Its customers range from companies to cities, trying to manage weather-related hazards.
Since Hurricane Sandy in 2012, for example, Swiss Re has been working with New York City to quantify climate change-related risks and identify cost-effective measures to shore up buildings and other structures such as elevating electrical systems, and building barriers to a storm surge…
In East Africa, venture developer CleanStar Ventures has helped create a smoke-free ethanol cookstove, an alternative to charcoal. The $35 stoves are being sold and distributed by NDZiLO Mozambique — which the venture developer has a stake in. The stoves can run on ethanol made from local cassava.
Due to political unrest, ethanol is being imported to power the stoves…
Campbell Soup is thinking about climate change, too…
***A day after the U.S. announced plans to reduce carbon emissions at America’s coal-fired power plants, China — the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter — stepped into the debate Tuesday. China said it will limit its total emissions for the first time by the end of this decade…
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/beer-insurance-businesses-bet-climate-change-n124781
NBC – you don’t do fact-checking? that would explain much of the propaganda you put out daily:
3 June: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Behind the Mask – A Reality Check on China’s Plans for a Carbon Cap
BEIJING — Having covered China’s stance on global warming since 1988, I’ve gotten attuned to the need to tread carefully when something is said that feels like a shift in the official position of this greenhouse gas giant…
Here’s how things played out. An adviser to the Chinese government on climate change was quoted by Reuters as saying the following at a Beijing climate-policy conference on Tuesday:
“The government will use two ways to control CO2 emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap.”
The story quickly pivoted to how significant this would be given the context of President Obama’s move and informal climate talks starting on Wednesday in Bonn, Germany…
The Guardian quickly followed Reuters with “China pledges to limit carbon emissions for first time,” a piece canvassing climate campaigners but offering no reinforcing input from the Chinese government.
I consulted with The Times’s Beijng bureau. Christopher Buckley, a reporter [based in Hong Kong] who in 2011 had covered China’s emissions plans [and similar pushes from advisers to adopt a cap] while with Reuters, spoke with He Jiankun, who told him repeatedly that he did not in any way speak for the government, or the full expert climate committee…
Here’s Buckley’s translation:
“It’s not the case that the Chinese government has made any decision. This is a suggestion from experts, because now they are exploring how emissions can be controlled in the 13th Five Year Plan…. This is a view of experts; that’s not saying it’s the government’s. I’m not a government official and I don’t represent the government.”
A Reuters reporter told me tonight that a correction was being posted [it’s here], but not before other newspapers – including USA Today with a piece on China’s “emissions pledge” – built on the report…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/behind-the-mask-a-reality-check-on-chinas-plans-for-a-carbon-cap/
A new form of “Ambulance Chaser” !
No wonder that “Insurers”, i.e. State Farm + Allstate + Progressive (Ha ha) and the MegaBank Re’s, are all over “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” to get a “fist full of dollars” for no good reason other than greed.
And the AGU is fueling the “race cars” and lining their pockets !
Well, after all, they [AGU] Pay Mann’s Legal fees without question nor review. The Life of Mann !
This story reminds me of the silly “green” rules local councils impose on people, without the slightest thought about the consequenses. In Australia bush fire seasons are reported to be getting worse due to climate change. What is ignored is no-one is allowed to adequately reduce fuel loads in areas prone to bush fires. Where people build and live in “the bush” the residents are banned, and can be fined, for clearing bush from properlties in fire prone areas. And if it is a native plant, tree or bush be very affraid.
A classic example of this lunacy is in the 2009 Victorian bush fires, the first fire started by a power line that failed and fell to the ground sparking, an owner of a property was fined $50,000 by the local council after the fires had ripped through the area without damaging his property simply due to the fact he had cleared bush fuel load around it.
As with poeple in flood prone areas of Brisbane for instance, property owners in fire prone areas in Australia that have been struck in recent years cannot purchase bush fire insurance. This whole thing also reminds me of a film staring Billy Connolly called “The man who sued God.”, the story being that the insurance company would not pay out for a lightening strike on his boat classing the event as an “Act of God”, really funny!
> kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
> June 7, 2014 at 1:25 pm
> Second, if a municipality should dare to compose a
> climate action plan that would in any way confess they
> might be> unprepared for the maximum possible
> disastrous catastrophes imagined by the IPCC, EPA,
> WWTF, GreenWar, or the Sierra Leone Club, they are
> leaving themselves open to lawsuits for failing to
> sufficiently respond to a public safety issue.
>
> Thus the message to all politicians is, don’t put
> anything in writing that can bite you later, don’t do
> any climate action plan.
>
> That’ll work.
That may have been intended as sarcasm on your part, but unfortunately it reflects reality, insofar as the legal system can be considered “reality”. Case in point, here in Canada, we had a lawsuit many years ago against “MUC” (Montreal Urban Community, i.e. Greater Montreal regional government). I can’t find references on Google. Off the top of my head, I believe it was a class-action suit on behalf of asthma sufferers, etc, against the MUC government. The claim was that MUC was not doing enough to clamp down on open fires (barbecues, etc) and property owners who didn’t maintain their properties, allowing pollen-emitting weeds to flourish. The response from MUC was to immediately repeal all such bye-laws. I.e. stop attempting to control open fires and pollen-emitting weeds. The result was to remove potential future liability for MUC, whilst making things even worse for asthma sufferers. To paraphrase a 1970’s saying about speed limits… it’s not a good idea, it’s the law.
Nice cheap shot/strawman.
You can have your “act of god” back, then maybe you can explain why god murders little babies with tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, avalanches, etc.
Utterly intellectually deficient.
Insurance is another example of the Great Climate Change Protection Racket, Lloyds of London are into it in a big way, employing attack dogs such as Trevor Maynard:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/08/lloyds-insurer-account-climate-change-extreme-weather-losses
Could be a business opportunity here, offer insurance that does NOT have a premium for “Climate Change”.
Jimbo says:
June 7, 2014 at 2:05 pm
Then how do you explain the US Supreme Court decision which basically said that CO2 is pollution if the EPA says it is?
Farmers sued not only Chicago, but about 100 small municipalities in the three county area. Their big legal hurdle was qualified municipal immunity which protects towns and cities from liability for making policy decisions. I briefly looked at the issue when the suits were filed because I’m a lawyer and a taxpayer in one of the small communities sued and a win by Farmers would necessarily increase my taxes to pay off the judgment. It looked to me that the immunity issue is insurmountable and Farmers was headed for some very bad publicity. In effect, Farmers was suing its own policyholder customers because those customers were also part of the taxpayer class who would have their taxes increased to pay the judgment. I have a suspicion that several of the larger law firms in the area, perhaps some of them Farmers’ customers, sent protest letters with short memorandums of law to the company triggering a reexamination of the suit. Other insurers like Allstate would have been able to use Farmers’ suit as an advertizing issue to draw Farmers customers away. This suit was ill-conceived and it might have had something to do with the European thinking of Swiss Re, the parent company, but that’s speculation, but European law is quite different than in the US.
From Jeff Alberts on June 7, 2014 at 9:06 pm:
Little babies are innocent so their souls go to Heaven once they stop wearing the flesh, thus they receive the ultimate reward, without having to endure the many years of endemic corruption when they could deny themselves their reward. So what does it matter?
It’s like with being suddenly struck down, a battle with cancer, or fading into shutdown with dementia. The prize is the same, you’re all set to enjoy a peaceful eternity, the prologue is merely different means of cashing in your ticket.
kadaka,
do not feed the troll.
By the way, the kadaka fern is a really good looking plant.
I read somewhere that the Chicago River flowed north into Lake Michigan and that it was used as part of a giant sewage system. As Chicago grew someone realized they were pooping (into the river) in their drinking water (from the lake) so engineers got together and reversed the flow of the river (over 100 years ago). Where you see the problems of serious flooding, mankind’s footprint is never far behind.
RE the typo in the logo used to illustrate this article (Get’s You Back Where You Belong). I don’t think the illustration is a genuine Farmers logo. I found the company’s logo at (http://media.merchantcircle.com/19479309/FarmersInsurance_full.jpeg) — in it, “Gets” is spelled properly. … Admittedly, I have no idea what the slogan is supposed to mean, but then my sense of belonging has always been a little uncertain.
What? Is it supposed to be “git’s” you back?
Murdering babies and the elderly isn’t a sin then. Got it. Such explanations as yours are such a cop out.