Climate litigation

The Hague, May 26, 2021: the district court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut its net emissions 45% by 2030 against a 2019 baseline. On November 12, 2024 the appeal court overturns the quantum, while upholding that a reduction obligation exists. Climate litigation lumps together actions so different that treating them as one class misleads. Against states, claimants seek a heightened duty of care grounded in fundamental rights, and they have won: on April 9, 2024, in KlimaSeniorinnen, the European Court of Human Rights held that inadequate Swiss climate action breached Article 8. Against corporates, plaintiffs go after a reduction obligation of their own, compensation for historic contribution to emissions, or misleading commercial claims. That last route works best because it rides on well-tested consumer law. On the insurance side the exposure sits first in D&O: the claim targets management decisions rather than bodily injury or property damage, so it slips past the pollution exclusions in standard liability wordings. Pricing is the hard part, with no loss in the usual sense: the cost is defense spend plus obligations to act that carry no set monetary value.