Description: Action by insurance company seeking declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify its policyholder in underlying litigation seeking climate change-related damages.
-
Steadfast Insurance Co. v. AES Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/20/2012 Opinion Download Opinion issued reaffirming previous holding in favor of insurance company. The Virginia Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous holding that an insurance company had no obligation to defend or indemnify an energy company against a lawsuit alleging that its greenhouse gas emissions led to the destruction of an Alaskan village. Upon rehearing, the court reaffirmed its prior holding, stating that the allegations by the village were that its damages were the result of the energy company's intentional actions and not an accident or other occurrence covered by the policy. 01/17/2012 Order Order issued granting petition for rehearing and setting aside and withdrawing opinion of September 16, 2011. The Virginia Supreme Court granted a motion for a new hearing in a lawsuit in which the court previously held that an insurance company did not have a duty to defend an energy company being sued for its alleged contribution to climate change. In the motion, the energy company argued that the court’s decision was overly broad and could impair the administration of insurance claims for negligence in Virginia. 09/16/2011 Opinion Download Opinion issued. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the energy company. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the relevant policies only provided coverage against claims for damages caused by an accident or occurrence, and said that the release of greenhouse gases did not qualify as either.
-
Steadfast Insurance Co. v. AES Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/05/2010 Order Download Order issued granting summary judgment to plaintiff. In February 2010, a state court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted the insurer's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court entered a declaratory judgment that the insurer had no duty to defend AES Corporation in connection with the underlying Kivalina litigation because no "occurrence" as defined in the policies had been alleged in the underlying complaint. 07/09/2008 Not Available Complaint filed. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Steadfast, which issued a series of general liability insurance policies to AES, is not liable for any damages AES is obligated to pay in the Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. lawsuit filed in federal court. Plaintiffs in Kivalina seek to recover damages from AES and other parties caused by climate change that threatens their village in Alaska. The complaint alleges several bases for non-coverage, including that the policies only apply to claims arising from an "accident" which is not alleged by the Kivalina plaintiffs, that the damages occurred prior to September 2003 when the policies were issued, and because greenhouse gases are considered a pollutant which is subject to the pollution exclusion clauses in the policies.