Lliuya v. RWE
A Peruvian guide's action against a German utility, dismissed in May 2025, but which accepted that a major emitter can in principle be liable for climate harm abroad.
The question liability insurers most fear in climate matters is attribution: can an emitter be held liable, in proportion to its share of historical emissions, for a specific harm caused by warming? A Peruvian mountain guide asked a German utility to fund, in line with its estimated share of global emissions, the protection of his house against the outburst of a glacial lake. The Hamm Higher Regional Court dismissed the claim because the flood risk to the property was too low, but it accepted the principle of liability under German civil law of a major emitter for distant harm. That principle, if followed, makes an insured's share of emissions relevant to assessing its exposure. The case lasted nearly ten years.
Filed in 2015, the action asked RWE to contribute, in proportion to its estimated share of about 0.47% of historical global emissions, to protective works against Lake Palcacocha above Huaraz. On May 28, 2025, the fifth civil panel of the Hamm Higher Regional Court dismissed it with no possibility of appeal, finding a probability of the house being affected of about 1% over thirty years.
Follow the research
One letter a week. First, the week's underwriting note, when one is published: a dated, argued decision, signed by Paul Bernardski. Then what the observatory published on cyber risk, political risk and insurance. No account, no tracking.
No spam, one-click unsubscribe, no data ever sold.