Oil giants seek pause in climate lawsuit as dismissal motions loom

A group of major oil companies is asking a Washington state federal court for a stay of discovery deadlines in a climate-related lawsuit. A costly discovery phase could be avoided, defendants say, if the court waits to hear their forthcoming motions to dismiss the case.

Defendants, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell, Chevron Corp., BP, ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute, filed a motion seeking a protective order.

The companies want to pause scheduling deadlines until 30 days after the court rules on their motions to dismiss, which attorneys say will be filed on March 11. The parties have already agreed to a briefing schedule, with arguments set to conclude in late June.

Washington state homeowner’s insurance rates increased by 51% over the past six years, the two plaintiffs claim in the lawsuit filed Nov. 25. They claim that oil companies are to blame for driving climate change, and along with it, rising insurance rates.

The companies, states the lawsuit, “were well aware of that climate change associated with the sale of fossil fuel products would result in extreme weather events and rising sea levels, and they invested heavily to protect their own assets, infrastructure, and operations from them and invested to continue and expand their conduct that was contributing to climate change.”

Richard Kennedy of Normandy Park, Wash., and Margaret Hazard of Carson, Wash., are the plaintiffs and are represented by Hagens Berman, an international law firm with Seattle offices.

'Unprecedented theory of liability'

The oil companies should be held liable under state law for harms tied to more than a century of fossil-fuel production, energy consumption, and resulting greenhouse gas emissions that contributed to global climate change, plaintiffs argue.

Citing a January report from the Department of the Treasury, plaintiffs note that, from 2018 to 2022, the annual number of major disaster declarations for climate-related events was almost double the annual average over the 50 years from 1960 to 2010.

In 2023, U.S. natural catastrophes cost an estimated $114 billion, of which approximately $80 billion was insured, the lawsuit said. Through the first three quarters of 2024, natural catastrophes caused $145 billion in economic losses, of which nearly $80 billion was insured.

Kennedy said his homeowner’s insurance premiums totaled $1,012.10 in 2017, the lawsuit said. By 2022, that bill rose to $2,149.18, an increase of approximately 113%.

“Plaintiff was unaware of Defendants’ misleading and deceptive acts concerning the true impact their practices had on climate change and the related increase in his insurance premiums based on this wrongdoing,” the lawsuit reads.

But defendants say the claims rely on a “novel and unprecedented theory of liability” and raise fundamental legal issues that should be resolved before any discovery begins. They plan to challenge the case on multiple grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

"Plaintiffs’ allegations are unlikely to survive Defendants’ forthcoming Motions to Dismiss for multiple, independent reasons," defendants' attorneys write.

In their filing, the companies point to similar climate-related cases that have been dismissed at the pleadings stage, citing a “growing chorus of state and federal courts” rejecting comparable claims.

SCOTUS to take the case

Dozens of "climate accountability" lawsuits have been brought by U.S. local governments seeking to hold oil companies financially liable for local climate-related damages like wildfires and floods.

Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Suncor Energy v. City of Boulder, which many legal experts are calling the most significant development in these "dozens" of cases to date.

The high court will decide if federal law, specifically the Clean Air Act, preempts state-law claims for climate-related damages. If the Supreme Court sides with the oil companies, most of the approximately 40 similar lawsuits nationwide -- including those in California, Hawaii and New Jersey -- could be dismissed before ever reaching trial.

In the Washington case, the court previously set deadlines for initial disclosures, a discovery conference and a joint status report. Those deadlines were temporarily stayed to allow the defendants to seek further relief.

The companies argue that without a stay, the parties would be forced into extensive and potentially costly discovery in what they describe as a sweeping putative class action. They contend it would be more efficient for the court to first determine whether the case can proceed at all.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

InsuranceNewsNet Senior Editor John Hilton has covered business and other beats in more than 20 years of daily journalism. John may be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @INNJohnH.