Fifth Circuit Opinion Allows Climate Change Lawsuit

Private plaintiffs have begun filing suit for damages alleged to have been caused by climate changes. Whether these cases, involving energy and chemical company defendants, will stand remains an open question. On October 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a climate change lawsuit brought by residents and owners of lands and property along the Mississippi Gulf Coast who claim damages from Hurricane Katrina. No. 07-60756; Comer v. Murphy Oil, et al. These Plaintiffs sued numerous energy companies, chemical companies, and coal mining companies based upon the claim that the Defendants' operation of the energy, chemical, and fossil fuels industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gases that have contributed to global warming. The Comer Plaintiffs claim that the increase in global surface, air and water temperatures caused a rise in sea levels and added to the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the Plaintiffs' private property, as well as public property useful to them.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the Comer lawsuit on September 17, 2007, based upon lack of standing and also based upon the political question doctrine. This was consistent with other federal district courts in recent years, all of whom have dismissed private party climate change lawsuits based upon lack of standing and/or the political question doctrine. As recently as September 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed by an Alaskan Inupiat village against twenty-four oil, energy and utility companies based upon these same defenses. No. C 08-1138; Native Village of Kivalina, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al.

However, the Fifth Circuit held that the private party Plaintiffs in Comer have standing to assert public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims based upon their allegations of global warming. The Fifth Circuit also held that none of these claims present nonjusticiable political questions which must be dismissed based upon the political question doctrine. Thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims and remanded them to the district court.

The Comer decision follows on the heels of the September 21, 2009, Second Circuit decision in State of Connecticut, et al. v. American Electric Power Company, et al. which reversed the dismissal of a climate change lawsuit filed by eight states and the City of New York against six electric power companies that own and operate fossil-fuel power plants in twenty states. The Second Circuit held that the Plaintiffs had stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance which did not present non-justiciable political questions and that those Plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims.

Thus, the Fifth and Second Circuits have held that certain private parties may bring nuisance, trespass, or negligence lawsuits based upon the claim that the actions of certain identified defendants have contributed to global warming, and that such claims are not barred by the political question doctrine. Courts have begun warming up to the view that certain private party plaintiffs can sue for damages allegedly caused by global warming.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs', taking a lead role in the plaintiffs' steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm's client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success.

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

More Success Stories