William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review
Abstract
For decades, common law has been the pathway to remediation for environmental tragedies. Victims of traditional environmental harms can pursue justice through legal challenges like nuisance, negligence, and violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). However, climate change–induced natural disasters have led to the normalization of the “Act of God” exception; a policy provision commonly used in insurance law that excludes coverage for damage caused by unforeseeable natural disasters. Even so, real cities suffer the consequences of the real harm, whether insurance accepts it or not; so, who bears the burden of funding the recovery?
Maryland, Massachusetts, California, and Oregon are paving the way in drafting strict liability climate disaster laws (“climate disaster laws”), and in May of 2024, Vermont was the first state to make strict liability payments for climate disasters a reality. New York followed quickly behind in 2025. Shortly after Vermont and New York passed their climate disaster laws, several fossil fuel companies filed lawsuits claiming that the laws were unconstitutional.
Part I of this Note will outline the framework of the six climate disaster laws. Because Vermont and New York are the first states to pass this type of legislation, they will act as the Note’s baseline comparisons. After analyzing each of the six state laws, a clear divide in strategy will appear, with Vermont, Oregon, and California on one side (“fluid states”) and New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland on the other (“fixed states”). Part II will provide a historical overview of climate change laws that have been in effect for decades, showcasing the traditional credibility of climate change accountability. Part III will present scientific studies on climate disaster costs through examining the accuracy of climate data and theoretical calculations. Part IV will explore the social elements that factor into damage calculation, such as public policy costs and benefits. Finally, the Conclusion includes a prediction for the future of climate law cases by highlighting the split in judgments from the Supreme Court. This section will affirm that strict liability laws for climate disasters do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Fairness Clause because the foundation for the laws is credible.
This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.
Repository Citation
Kelly A. Adam, Environmental Bankers: States Are Billing Fossil Fuel Companies for Extreme Weather Disasters, 50 Wm. & Mary Env’t L. & Pol'y Rev. 143 (2025), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol50/iss1/5Included in
Environmental Law Commons, Insurance Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons