WTW-氣候訴訟風(fēng)險(xiǎn)-有風(fēng)暴避難所嗎？（英）

ClimatelitigationriskIsthereshelterfromthestorm?ClimatelitigationExploringtheimpactofclimatelitigationriskontheinsurancemarket.Susan

DoeringMichelle

RadcliffeDirector,ClimateAnalytics,InsuranceConsulting&Technology.

Climate&InsurancelawSMEMartin

LockmanClimateLawFellowandAssociateResearch

Scholar

atthe

Sabin

Center

forClimateChange

LawSeniorDirector,HeadofClimateRiskManagementSolutionsandGlobalClientAdvocatetools,scenariosandsystemstoidentify,assess,andmitigateclimatelitigationrisk,(re)insurerscanworkwiththeirclientstoidentifyandmitigaterisk,resultinginamutuallybeneficialoutcomefor

allparties.Inthispaper,

launchedtocoincidewithNewYork

ClimateWeek

2023,we

combinetheexpertiseofWTW’sSusanDoeringandMichelleRadcliffe(CorporateRisk&BrokingandInsuranceConsulting&Technologyrespectively),alongwithMartinLockman,ClimateLawFellowattheSabinCenterforClimateChangeLawandAssociateResearchScholaratColumbiaLawSchool,tofocusontherelativelylesswelldocumentedimpactofclimatelitigationontheinsurancemarket.We

focusonahigh-leveldiscussionofrisks,mitigants,andopportunities,anddonotprovideanylegaladvice.Thequestionofwhetheranyspecificcostwillbecoveredunderaparticularpolicywilldependonanumberoffactors,includingdetailsoftheunderlyingclimatelawsuit,thewordingofanyrelevantpolicies,andthegoverninglawoftheapplicablejurisdiction.Thehigh-levelframeworksdiscussedinthispaperemphasizeonepoint:whileclimatelitigationisoftennovel,itisrarelyunpredictable.Withtherequisiteknowledge,care,anddiligence,(re)insurerscanworkwiththeirclientstoreducerisksacrosstheirportfoliosandintherealworld.Asregulators,shareholders,andinvestorsincreasinglyfocusontheriskofclimatelitigation,itiscrucialfor(re)insurerstounderstandtheirpotentialexposuretoclimatelitigationacrossdifferentlinesofbusiness.Thepaperaimstohelpnon-life(re)insurersunderstandthescopeofprivatesectorclimatelitigation,highlightitspotentialimpactondifferentpolicylines,andpresent(re)insurerswithanoverviewofcoverageconsiderations,riskassessmentmeasures,andareasfor

futureinnovation.We

alsoidentifyhowreinsurerscanbeproactiveinaddressingtheglobalclimatetransition.Manycategoriesofclimatelitigationarisefromcompanies’failuretoplanfor

andprotectagainsttheimpactsofglobalclimatechange.BybuildingWith

the

requisite

knowledge...(re)insurers

can

work

with

theirclients

to

reduce

risks

across

theirportfolios

and

in

the

real

world.2/Climatelitigationrisk—isthereshelterfromthestorm?IntroductionSincetheUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgrammebegansurveyingglobalclimatelitigationin2017,

thevolumeofclimatelawsuitsworldwidehasmorethandoubled.AsofDecember31,

2022,theUNreportedthatexcessof2,180

climatelawsuitshadbeenfiledinAsofDecember31,

2022,

theUNreportedthatexcessof2,180climate

lawsuits

hadbeenfiledinmore

than

65

jurisdictionsacross

the

world.morethan65jurisdictionsacrosstheworld.1Whilethe1majorityofclimatelawsuitstargetgovernments,anincreasingnumberoflawsuitsarebeingbroughtagainstprivatesectorcompaniesunderagrowingvarietyofoftenstruggletoestimatetheirexposuretoclimatelitigationrisk.

In2023,Canada’sfederalinsurancelegaltheories.earlystages,significantdefensecostsarealreadybeingincurredby

defendantentities.2Whilemuchofthislitigationisinits4regulatoremphasizedtheneedfor

insurerstopreparefor

“climate-relatedclaimsunderliabilitypolicies,”

andwarnedthatinsurersandtheirdirectorsandofficers3Thisgrowinglitigationriskhascaughttheattentionofinsuranceregulatorsaroundtheworld.TheBankofEngland’s2021climatestress-testfoundthatinsurersmayfaceliabilityfor

neglectingclimate-relatedrisks.5Whatisclimatelitigation?Two

ofthesecategoriesmatchtermsusedinclimatechangepolicy:“mitigation”referstoeffortstoslow,

halt,orreverseclimatechangeitself,

while“adaptation”looksateffortstoadapttothephysical,societal,economic,To

understandthescopeofclimatelitigationrisk,we

needtofirstansweradeceptivelycomplicatedquestion:whatisclimatelitigation?andlegalchangesassociatedwithclimatechange.7Unsurprisingly,thesepolicygoalsareidentifiableintheassociatedcategoriesoflitigation.“Mitigationclaims”canariseeitherfromadefendant’shistoricGHGemissionsorattempttopreventfutureGHGemissions.“Adaptationclaims,”

arisefromadefendant’sfailuretoplanfor

oradapttoclimatechange.“Governanceandregulatoryclaims,”

arisefromadefendant’sbreachofestablishedlegaldutiesrelatedtoclimatechange.Theselegaldutiescanoriginatefrommanysources.Thenewsisdominatedby

high-profilelawsuitsthatbringbroad,society-changingclaimsaboutgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsandseektoassignresponsibilityfor

climatechangeitselforholdfossilfuelcompaniesresponsiblefor

theharmsassociatedwiththeirproducts.Thesecasesarehugelyimportant,butjustasimportantfor

insurersarethemyriadofotherdisputesdrivenbyclimatechange:contractsthrownintoconfusionbyunanticipatedweather,climate-stressedinfrastructurefailingwithcalamitouseffect,directorsandofficerssuedbyshareholdersfor

ignoringcorporateclimaterisks.“Mitigation

claims”

can

arise

eitherfrom

a

defendant’s

historic

GHGemissions

or

attempt

to

preventfuture

GHG

emissions.For

thepurposesofthispaper,

“climatelitigation”referstodisputesthatarisefrom,orarerelatedto:1.2.3.Aparty’sThephysicalconsequencesofclimateLaws,contributiontoclimatechangeregulations,andlegaldutiesrelatedtoInsomecases,therelevantlawsandlegaldutiesmighthave

beenexplicitlydesignedwithclimatechangeinmind—for

instance,anupstreamnaturalgascompanythatventsmethaneintotheatmospheremightbesuedfor

violatingemissionspermitsinajurisdictionthatregulatesGHGemissions.Othergovernanceandregulatorysuitsmightclaimthatadefendantbreachedagenerallyapplicablelawinaway

thatraisesissuesoflaworfactrelatedtothescienceofclimatechange.Forexample,“greenwashing”suitsallegingthatadefendantmisrepresentedtheclimatebenefitsofaproductoftenariseunderlongstandingconsumerprotectionlaws,someofwhicharenowbeingupdatedtoreflecttheintricaciesofalleged‘greenwashing’suits.changeclimate

change.6Withinthisdefinition,privatesectorclimatelitigationcanbesortedintothreebroadcategories:1.Mitigationclaims2.Adaptationclaims3.Governanceandregulatoryclaims.Climatelitigationrisk—isthereshelterfromthestorm/3Table

1:

Types

of

climate

litigationDispute

typeMitigationDefinitionExamplesDisputesthatarisefromadefendant’scontributiontoclimatechangeoraplaintiff’sattempttolimitfutureGHGemissions.?

Emissionssuitsallegingthatacompany’sactivitiesorproductscontributedtoclimatechange.?

Financed

emissionssuitsallegingthata

company

activelycontributedtoanotherentity’s

GHG-emittingactivities

by

providingcapital

investment,

advisory

services,

orothersupport.

Theseclaimsmay

target

financial

sectoractors,

riskadvisors,orstrategicconsultants,

andmay

includedirect

suitsagainst(re)insurers.AdaptationDisputesthatarisefromadefendant’sfailuretoplanfor

oradapttothephysical,societal,orlegalimpactsofclimatechange.?

Suitsagainsttheownersoroperatorsofinfrastructurefollowingclimate-drivendisasters(forexample,damcollapsesorwildfires).?

ClaimsagainstdirectorsandofficerswhomakecorporateinvestmentsinGHG-emittinginfrastructurethatfacelegaloreconomicriskfromtheclimatetransition.?

Professionalliabilityorproductliabilityclaimsagainstarchitects,engineers,ormanufacturerswhofailtoconsiderthechangingclimatewhendesigningbuildingsorproducts.Governance

&RegulatoryDisputesarisingfrombreachesoflegaldutiesthatraiseissuesoflaworfactrelatedtothescienceofclimatechange.?

“Greenwashing”suitsallegingthatacompanymademisstatementsormisrepresentationsabouttheimpactofitsactivitiesonclimatechange.?

Securitieslitigationallegingthatacompanyfailedtodisclosematerialclimate-relatedriskstoitsbusiness.?

Government

enforcement

actions

allegingthata

companybreached

climate-related

laws,

likeemissionspermitting

schemes.4/Climatelitigationrisk—isthereshelterfromthestorm?Affectedproductlines(Re)insurers,likeotherfinancialsectorfirms,facenumerousrisksfromclimatelitigation,includingoperationandinvestmentrisksthatcouldresultinlosses,directlawsuitsarisingfromtheirowncorporateactivities,andregulatoryaction.However,

thissectionfocusesonauniquerisktothe(re)insuranceindustry:theindustry’sexposuretoclimatelitigationriskarisingfromcurrentportfoliosofunderwrittenpolicies.Climatelitigationhasalreadytriggeredprominentnotices,coverage,andcoveragedisputesunderCGLandenvironmentalliabilitypolicies.Inaddition,theBankofEngland’s2021ClimateBiennialExploratoryScenario(alsocalledthe“climatestresstest”)identifiedD&Opoliciesandprofessionalindemnitypoliciesasbeingparticularlyexposedtoclimatelitigation.

Claimsunder9otherpolicylines,likeproductliabilityandemployerliability,mayrarelyusethephrase“climatechange,”butmayneverthelessbeimpactedbychangingclimateconditionsandextremeweatherevents.Whilearapidlyevolvingrisk,climatelitigationisincreasinglysignificantfor

anumberofpolicylines,including:70%

of

global

climate

lawsuits,andmostoftheprominentcoveragedisputesrelatedtoclimatelitigation,Commercialgeneralliability(“CGL”)8Directors&officers(“D&O”)policiesEnvironmentalliabilitypoliciesProfessional

liabilityorprofessional

indemnitypoliciesProductliabilityarefiledintheU.S.10ThissectionclassifiesandanalyzespoliciesaccordingtothestandardsandlanguageprevailinginNorthAmericaninsurancemarkets,andprimarily(butnotexclusively)citeslitigationfromtheUnitedStates.Thisislargelyapracticalchoice—70%ofglobalclimatelawsuits,andmostoftheprominentcoveragedisputesrelatedtoclimatelitigation,arefiledintheU.S.10

However,

thefactualcircumstancesandtheoriesofharmunderlyingtheseclaimswillberelevanttoabroaderswatheofmarkets,subjecttolocallawsandpolicylanguage.Worker’s

compensationoremployer’sliabilitypolicies,amongothers.Commercial

general

liabilityMitigationDefendantsinmitigationlitigationoftenattempttoclaimarighttodefenseandindemnificationundergeneralliabilitypolicies.Asmitigationlitigationoftenallegescumulativeharmfromdecadesofemissions,theseclaimscanresultinnotificationsunderhistoricCGLpolicies.(Seepage7:

TheAlohaPetroleumLitigation).AdaptationAdaptationlitigationmayresultinclaimsunderCGLpolicieswhenaclient’sallegedfailuretoadapttoclimatechangecausesharmtothirdparties.For

example,theU.S.

ArmyCorpsofEngineershasfacedlawsuitsarisingfromitsoperationofdamsandwatercontrolinfrastructureduringHurricaneHarveyin2017.

ThesesuitsallegethattheArmyCorpsfailedtoappropriatelyreviseitswatercontrolplanstoreflectknownfloodrisks,andsubsequentlydestroyedneighboringpropertieswhenitsreservoirsoverflowedduringthehurricane.(SeeFortBendCnty.v.

UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers,59

F.4th

180,

186(5thCir.

2023)).Governance

&RegulatoryImpactnotapparent,butmayemergebasedonpolicylanguageandjurisdictionalcharacteristics.Climatelitigationrisk—isthereshelterfromthestorm/5TheAlohapetroleumlitigationSomeclimatedefendantshave

alreadysubmittedclaimsfor

indemnityinrespectofdefensecostsassociatedwithclimatelitigation,andsomeofthoseclaimshave

ledtosignificantcoveragedisputesbetweenpolicyholdersandtheirinsurers.In2020,

theCityandCountyofHonolulu1andtheCountyofMaui

broughtclaimsagainsta2numberoffossilfuelcompanies.Theseplaintiffsallegethatthecompanieshidtheknownharmfuleffectsoftheproductstheysold,andseekdamagesandotherreliefarisingfromtheirclimate-relatedharms.Oneofthedefendants,AlohaPetroleum,Inc.,broughtacoveragesuitagainstitsinsurer,

NationalUnionFireInsuranceCo.

ofPittsburgh(“NationalUnion”).Inthecase(AlohaPetroleumv.

NationalUnionFireInsuranceCo.ofPittsburgh),AlohaPetroleumclaimsthatitisentitledtodefenseandindemnificationunderfourCommercialGeneralLiabilitypolicies,whichcoverfourdiscreteone-yearperiodsbetween1980and1986.

Following3discovery,

AlohaPetroleumfiledanAmendedComplaint,inwhichanadditional19insurancepoliciesarelisted,allissuedbetween1980

and2009(byeitherNationalUnionoranotherinsurer,

AmericanHomeAssuranceCompany(“AmericanHome”)),inrespectofwhichAlohaPetroleumnowseeksindemnity.4TheAmendedComplaintalsocontainsaclaimagainstNationalUnionfor

itspurportedly“badfaith”denialofAlohaPetroleum’sinitialclaims,whichallegesthatNationalUnion’sinitialcoveragedenialwasbasedsolelyonapollutionexclusionina1985commercialgeneralliabilitypolicy.

AlohaPetroleumfurtherclaimsthatNationalUnionnowconcedesthatsomeofthepoliciesinrespectofwhichindemnityissoughtdonotcontainsuchapollutionexclusion,suchthattheinsurer“hasnoreasonablebasisfor

refusingand/or

failingtodefendAlohaunder[threeofthepolicies].”5Whilethislawsuit

remains

unresolved,

itillustratesthetypes

ofcoverage

disputesthatcanarisefrom

climatelitigation.Footnotes:Complaint,City&CountyofHonoluluv.

SunocoLP,

Civ.

No.

20-380(Haw.

1stCir.

Ct.filedMar.

9,

2020).Complaint,CountyofMauiv.

SunocoLP,

Civ.

No.

20-380(Haw.

2ndCir.

Ct.filedOct.12,2020).123SeeComplaint,AlohaPetroleumLtd.v.

NationalUnionFireInsuranceCo.

ofPittsburgh,Civ.

No.

22-372(D.

Haw.

filedAug.10,

2022).4SeeFirstAm.Complaint??8–32.,AlohaPetroleumLtd.v.

NationalUnionFireInsuranceCo.

ofPittsburgh,Civ.

No.

22-372(D.

Haw.

filedAug.10,

2022).5Id.??91–95.iAsagovernmententity,theArmyCorpsofEngineersissubjecttoasignificantlydifferentsetoflegalclaimsthanprivatecompanies.However,

thefactualallegations—theArmyCorps’allegedfailuretoadaptitsoperationstochangingphysicalconditions—illustrateanarchetypicaladaptationclaim.Environmental

insuranceMitigationMitigationclaimsarisefromorallegetheharmfulemissionofGHGs,whicharecolloquially(andoftenlegally)consideredapollutant.However,

environmentalpoliciesoftencoveranarrowrangeofharms,andsomemodernenvironmentalpoliciesexplicitlyexcludeclaimsrelatedtotheemissionofGHGs.11

ThequestionofwhetheramitigationclaimiscoveredunderCGLpolicies,environmentalpolicies,orneitherwillrequiresignificantanalysisofboththespecificclaimandthelanguageofanyapplicablepolicies.(Seepage11:“ExclusionaryLanguage”and“DefinitionofPollution”).AdaptationClimatechangeisdrivinganincreaseinsecondaryperilslikehurricanes,wildfires,andfloods.Ifcompaniesfailtoappropriatelypreparefor

suchincreasedrisks,thesedisasterscanresultinsignificantpollution.Followingapollutionevent,third-partylawsuitsandgovernmentenforcementactionsundergeneralenvironmentallawsmayresultinclaimsagainstenvironmentalpolicies.Governance

&RegulatoryFor

example,in2017floodingrelatedtoHurricaneHarveycausedanexplosionatachemicalfacilityinTexas,

resultinginaseriesoflawsuits,regulatoryenforcementactions,andcriminalprosecutions.In2023,thefacility’sownerrevealedthatthecostsassociatedwiththesedisputeshadbeenlargelycoveredbyenvironmentalinsurancepolicies.(Seepage10:TheArkemaChemicalFactoryExplosion).6/Climatelitigationrisk—isthereshelterfromthestorm?Directors

and

officers

insuranceMitigationThe

directors

and

officers

ofcompanieswhosebusinessmodelsrely

onGHG

emissionsmay

faceavariety

of

mitigation

claims.

For

example,in

2023ClientEarth(aU.K.

nonprofit)

fileda

shareholderderivateactionagainstthe

board

of

directors

of

Shell,

alleging

that

the

directors

“breached

theirlegalduties

underthe

[U.K.]Companies

Act

by

failing

toadopt

andimplementan

energy

transitionstrategy

that

alignswiththe

Paris

Agreement.”12

While

ClientEarth’s

case

wasdismissed,andEnglishcourts

have,

to

date,

“showed

reluctance”

toacceptthese

claims,

legalcommentatorshavesuggestedthatcases

likethis

may

reflecta

wider,

andgrowing,

trendin

suitsagainst

directors.13AdaptationThedirectorsandofficersofawidevarietyofcompaniesmayfaceadaptationclaimsallegingthattheyhave

failedtoconsider,orpreparefor,

thephysical,legal,economic,andsocietalrisksassociatedwithclimatechange.For

example,inMcVeigh

v.

RetailEmployeesSuperannuationTrust,anAustralianpensionfundmembersuedtheRetailEmployeesSuperannuationTrust,allegingthatthefundviolatedvariousfiduciarydutiessetforthinAustralianlaw“byfailingtoprovideinformationrelatedtoclimatechangebusinessrisksandanyplanstoaddressthoserisks.”

(SeeAmendedConciseStatement,McVeigh

v.

RetailEmployeesSuperannuationTrust,FederalCourtofAustralia,NSD1333/2018,(filedSept.21,

2018)(Austl.)).McVeigh

settledbeforetrial,followinganumberofgovernanceconcessionsbytheTrust

relatedtoitsclimatechangerisk-assessmentprocedures.14Governance

&RegulatoryDirectors

and

officers

may

also

faceclaims

arisingunder

general

corporate

law

thatostensiblyhave

little

todowitheithercorporateemissionsorclimate

risk.For

example,in

November

2022shareholders

of

Envivia,a

company

that

manufacturedpurportedly

sustainable

biofuelpellets,suedthe

company

and

several

directors

for

“misrepresent[ing]

the

environmentalsustainability”of

its

products,

whicha

market

report

issuedshortly

before

the

suithaddescribedas“flagrantlygreenwash[ed].”The

release

ofthe

market

report

caused

theprice

of

Envivia’s

stock

tofalldramatically.

(See

Complaint,

Fagen

v.

Envivia,

Civ.

No.

22-2844

(D.

Md.

filed

Nov.

3,

2022)).Professional

liability/professional

indemnityMitigationImpactnotapparentincurrentclimatelitigation,butmayemergeinindustrieswithsignificantcontributionstoGHGemissions.AdaptationProfessionalliabilitypoliciesmaybeexposedtoadaptationclaimsassertingthataninsuredprofessionalfailedtoadequatelyconsidertheimpactsofclimatechange.15

For

example,followingHurricaneHarveyhundredsofhomeownersinaTexas

housingdevelopmentsuedtheengineeringfirmCostello,Inc.for

itsallegedlyflaweddesignofaleveeprotectingtheneighborhood.ThefounderofCostello,Inc.notedthattheleveesweredesignedtoa100-yearfloodstandardthatHurricaneHarveydemonstratedwasinadequate.16Governance

&RegulatoryImpactnotapparentincurrentclimatelitigation,butmayemergebasedonpolicylanguageandjurisdictionalcharacteristics.Product

liabilityMitigationMitigationclaimsmayimplicateproductliabilitypolicieswheretheunderlyingclaimallegesadefectcausing,orriskarisingfrom,aproduct’sGHGemissions.For

example,municipalitiesinHawaiiarecurrentlysuinga

numberoffossilfuelcompaniesfordamagesassociatedwiththeirproducts’GHGemissions.Amongotherclaims,thesuitsassert“failuretowarn”claims—atheoryofproductliabilitywhichallegesthata

harmresultedfromamanufacturerordistributor’sfailuretowarnpurchasersofthepotentialrisksofusingaproduct.(Seepage7:TheAlohaPetroleumLitigation.)AdaptationProductliabilitypoliciesmayalsobeimpactedbyclaimsthataproduct’sfailuretoconsidertheimpactofclimatechangerendersitunfitfor

itspurposeorrecommendeduse.Productsasdiverseassandals,electronicspackaging,andpowersubstationsmaybevulnerabletoincreasedheatandextremeweatherevents.Governance

&RegulatoryImpactnotapparentincurrentclimatelitigation,butmayemergebasedonpolicylanguageandjurisdictionalcharacteristics.Climatelitigationrisk—isthereshelterfromthestorm/7Worker’s

compensation/employer’s

liabilityMitigationImpactnotapparentincurrentclimatelitigation,butmayemergeinselectindustrieswithsignificantcontributionstoGHGemissions.AdaptationClimatechangeexposesemployeestoincreasingphysicalrisksintheworkplace,likeheatwavesandotherextremeweatherevents.17

Employerswhofailtoadequatelyprotecttheirworkforcesagainsttheserisksmayfacelawsuitsfrominjuredworkersandenforcementactionsfromgovernmentsallegingviolationsofworkersafetylaws.18Governance

&RegulatoryTheArkemachemicalfactoryexplosionArkemaInc.istheownerandoperatorofachemicalfacilityinCrosby,

Texas.

A2016reportwrittenbyArkema’sinsureridentifiedthattheArkemafacilitywasvulnerabletoflooding,amongotherrisks,becauseinsurancefloodzoneshadshiftedsincethefacilitywasbuilt.Althoughtheinsurancereportidentifiedthefloodrisk,itdidnotmakeanyrecommendationstoArkematoaddressfloodinghazards.FollowingunrelatedchangestotheCrosbyfacility,Arkema’s

insurerindicatedthatitwassatisfiedwiththefacility’sriskprofile.1InAugustof2017,

theCrosbychemicalfacilitywasfloodedfollowingheavyrainfallcausedbyHurricaneHarvey.Arkema’s

floodedfacilitylostpoweranditschemicalrefrigerationsystemsfailed,whichinturnledtofires,anexplosion,andunauthorizedtoxicairemissions.subjecttoaseriesofprivatelawsuits,regulatoryenforcementactions,andcriminalprosecutions.oftheseclaimshave

beencoveredbyArkema’senvironmentalinsurancepolicies.2Followingtheexplosion,Arkemaanditsexecutiveswere3Themajority4Footnotes:1U.S.

ChemicalSafety&HazardInvestigationBoard,OrganicPeroxideDecomposition,Release,andFireatArkemaCrosbyFollowingHurricaneHarveyFlooding81–82(May2018),/arkema-inc-chemical-plant-fire-/.2Complaint,CountyofMauiv.

SunocoLP,

Civ.

No.

20-380(Haw.

2ndCir.

Ct.filedOct.12,2020).3For

anoverviewoftheselawsuits,seeMartinLockman,ModellingClimateLitigationRiskfor

(Re)Insurers,SabinCenterfor

ClimateChangeLawAnnex

3(July18,

2023),/sabin_climate_change/201.4Arkema,2022UniversalRegistrationDocument329(Mar.

28,

2023).8/Climatelitigationrisk—isthereshelterfromthestorm?ClimatelitigationcoverageconsiderationsKeypolicy

terms

affecting

coverageExclusionary

languageGiventheseriousuncertaintiessurroundingclimatelitigationandthepotentialscaleofclimatedamages,

many(re)insurers

may

want

toentirely

exclude

climateclaimsfrom

coverage.

Several

organizations

have

developedexclusionary

languagedesignedtolimit(re)insurer

exposuretovariouskindsofclimateliabilityrisk.21

However,whilesampleexclusions

are

available,

the(re)

insurance

industry’swillingnesstoadoptsuchexclusionswilldependon:1.

theeaseofidentifyingclimateclaims,2.

theeaseofdistinguishingclimateclaimsfromother,coveredclaims,and3.

thewillingnessofclientstoacceptpolicieswithclimatelitigationexclusions,orindeed(re)insurersappetitetowritethem.Faced

withtheriskofclimatelitigation,itisimportant

for(re)insurers

andtheirclientstounderstandtheextent

towhichclimatelitigationmay

becovered

by

theircurrentandhistoricpolicies,

andtounderstandthecoverageimplicationsofnewly

writtenpolicies.

Thissectionaddresses

key

policy

termsaffecting

climatelitigationcoverage.

Itisimportant

tonotethatthediscussionofpolicy

termsinthissectionisgeneral,

andthatthequestionofwhethera

specific

climatelitigationclaimwillbecoveredundera

specific

insurance

policy

requires

a

nuancedandjurisdiction-specific

analysis.Within

these

limitations,however,

several

termshave

beenidentified

asparticularlyimportant

for

understandingclimatelitigationrisk.General

termsAsapracticalmatter,

someclimateclaimswillbemucheasiertoexcludefromcoveragethanothers.Mitigationclaimsarerelativelyeasytoidentify—althoughtheymaytakeavarietyofforms,

theyarisefromadefendant’sinvolvementintheemissionofaspecificsetofGHGpollutants.Adaptationclaims,ontheotherhand,arelikelytobeintertwinedwithotherclaimsthatarenotobviouslyclimate-related.Ifanewhousingdevelopmentisunderminedbyunanticipatedflooding,for

example,itmaytakeyearsofcomplexlitigationbeforetheparties(andtheirinsurers)determinethatthecollapsewascausedbyafailureofthebuildertoplanforthechangingclimate.Otherclimateclaims,likesomegovernanceandregulatoryclaimsagainstdirectorsandofficers,maybeeasytoidentifyasclimate-relatedbuthardtoexcludefor

commercialreasons.While(re)insurersmayeasilyidentifylawsuitsalleginggreenwashing,for

example,thesesuitsareultimatelyverysimilartoothercorporatemisrepresentationr