It looks like a new front might be opening up on the global warming battlefield and this time the attackers will be the insurance companies. A few weeks ago I intended to write about an insurance company which, rather than pay for storm damage, decided to sue the city of Chicago for failing to adequately prepare for global warming but I never got around to that post.
Since that time the lawsuit has been dropped but this is just the beginning: insurance companies believe they have found a way out of paying for their obligations and there is more likely to follow according to this article.
It was “the first loud shot in what I think will be a long-term set of litigation battles over failure to prepare for climate change,” Michael Gerrard, who directs the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University in New York, told NBC News.
“We hoped that by filing this lawsuit we would encourage cities and counties to take preventative steps to reduce the risk of harm in the future,” the company said in a statement issued Tuesday by spokesman Trent Frager. That message, according to the statement, was heard. Going forward, Farmers said it would continue to work with the cities “to build stronger, safer communities.”
I think a more accurate statement would have been; we filed this lawsuit because we thought we found a way out of paying for the coverage we promised our customers.
My question is this: what difference, at this point, does it make? Even if we concede the point that global warming is real for the sake of this post unless there is a provision in a person’s insurance contract that stipulates an insurance company will not pay for global warming related damage it would seem to me that the insurance company is still obligated to pay.
This just happens to be a convenient little maneuver to shift the costs from the insurance companies back onto the homeowners through their tax dollars.
Can we chalk this up to an unintended consequence to the global warming propaganda or is there more to this? Could this be a coordinated effort between the insurance companies and the global warming alarmists to win support from people who would otherwise be opposed to the global warming agenda? The Hegelian dialectic could be on full display here: create or take advantage of a crisis, control both sides of the argument, and use it to implement the predetermined solution…..