RELATING TO COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE--PROCEDURE IN PARTICULAR, ACTIONS -- CLIMATE DISASTER ACTIONS
H7752 would create a new chapter in Rhode Island law authorizing civil lawsuits for “climate-attributable harm” caused by a “climate disaster” against certain fossil fuel companies and related entities. The bill is aimed at corporations that extracted, produced, refined, marketed, or sold fossil fuel products and allegedly made misleading, deceptive, or false statements or omissions about the climate impacts of those products. If a plaintiff proves that such conduct was a substantial contributing factor to the harm, the responsible party would be strictly liable.
The bill allows a broad range of plaintiffs, including individuals, businesses, nonprofits, municipalities, and other political subdivisions, to recover damages for property loss, business interruption, repair or relocation costs, attorneys’ fees, and potentially punitive damages. It also creates a direct cause of action for insurers to recover paid claims, higher reinsurance or capital costs, and market destabilization costs tied to climate disasters. The legislation further authorizes subrogation by insurers and requires the insurance commissioner to consider whether large-scale subrogation would benefit policyholders before proceeding.
The bill would add a new statutory framework to Title 10 governing civil procedure for climate disaster actions. It would expand potential liability for fossil fuel-related entities in Rhode Island by creating a private right of action and a separate insurer recovery mechanism, while also limiting certain defenses such as assumption of risk and contractual choice-of-law provisions when misleading conduct is shown. The bill directs insurance recoveries to be considered in rate filings and used to offset losses or future premium increases, and it instructs the Department of Business Regulation to adopt rules to ensure policyholders receive equitable credit. It also preserves existing attorney general authority, consumer protection and environmental claims, and insurance commissioner powers.
The bill text reflects a strongly supportive posture toward climate accountability, insurance market stabilization, and shifting costs to entities alleged to have contributed to climate harms through deceptive conduct. The legislative findings frame the measure as a response to increasing climate-driven losses, rising insurance costs, and the need to protect ratepayers and policyholders. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented opposition or support from hearings or floor action beyond the bill’s stated purpose and findings.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad liability theory, its use of strict liability, and its reliance on allegations of misleading or deceptive statements about climate impacts to establish responsibility. Potential opponents would include fossil fuel producers and related industry interests, who may argue the bill is an attempt to impose retroactive liability for global climate harms and could invite extensive litigation. Another likely area of dispute is the insurer recovery and rate-setting provisions, including whether recoveries should be passed through to policyholders and how the insurance commissioner should weigh the costs and benefits of subrogation litigation. Because no hearing or vote record is provided, these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from stated testimony.