State of Hawai’i v. BP p.l.c.

After the U.S. Supreme Court granted fossil fuel companies' petition for writ of certiorari in the City of Boulder and Boulder County Commissioners' <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/board-of-county-commissioners-of-boulder-county-v-suncor-energy-u-s-a-inc-_be5980">climate case</a>, the fossil fuel industry defendants in this case asked the Hawai‘i trial court to continue the stay of proceedings that was in place due to the United States’ pending lawsuit in federal court seeking to enjoin Hawai‘i’s lawsuit. The defendants argued that it “will promote judicial economy and the interests of justice to continue to pause proceedings here to permit the Supreme Court to provide potentially dispositive guidance regarding a core threshold issue in this case.” The defendants also argued continuing the stay was warranted due to defendant Chevron’s filing of a motion to enforce a 2002 judgment in a case that resolved claims brought by the State of Hawai‘i arising from alleged deceptive manufacture, marketing, and sale of petroleum products. The defendants argued that the resolution of Chevron’s motion could dispose of this case as to Chevron and that other defendants in this case also intend to file similar motions in the other case. In addition, the defendants argue that the court should continue the stay until the United States’ lawsuit in federal court is resolved.

Fossil fuel industry defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings in the climate change lawsuit that the State of Hawai‘i filed against them. The defendants contended that the resolution of the <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/united-states-v-hawaii/">federal lawsuit</a> filed by the United States the day before the State filed its lawsuit could resolve “crucial threshold questions” that might “dispose of this case entirely.”

The day after the Trump administration <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/united-states-v-hawaii/">filed</a> its lawsuit seeking to block the State of Hawai‘i from filing a climate change case against fossil fuel companies, the State of Hawai‘i filed a lawsuit against oil and gas companies and American Petroleum Institute (API) in Hawai‘i Circuit Court alleging that Hawai‘i had suffered climate change harms as a result of the defendants’ “decades-long campaign of deception” regarding the climate impacts of fossil fuel products. The State alleged that the defendants had known for more than 60 years that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel products would have significant adverse impacts on climate and sea levels and had taken steps to protect their own assets from such impacts, but that the defendants publicly concealed and misrepresented the dangers of fossil fuels and climate change and promoted increasing use of fossil fuels. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ actions “contributed substantially to consumer demand for fossil fuels and the consequent building of [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere that drives climate change change and its physical, environmental, and socioeconomic consequences.” The State alleged that it had spent and would continue to spend “substantial sums” to “fortify infrastructure against sea level rise, extreme precipitation, extreme storms, and coastal and inland flooding” and “to protect its people and infrastructure from increased temperatures, increased fire risk, vector-born illnesses, lost jobs and economic activity, and other climate change hazards.” The State asserted causes of action for negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and civil conspiracy to commit those torts. The complaint also asserted violations of the Hawaiʻi Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) Statute and claimed that the defendants harmed and conspired to harm the State’s public trust resources protected under the Hawai‘i Constitution. In addition, the State asserted claims of strict liability for failure to warn (against the defendant companies) and of civil aiding and abetting the companies’ tortious actions (against API). The State sought compensatory, punitive, and natural resource damages, as well as any other damages permitted by law. Other relief sought by the State included disgorgement of profits; equitable relief, for example by means of a fund to pay for adaptation, mitigation, and resilience measures; civil penalties, damages, treble damages, and injunctive relief under the UDAP Statute; and attorney fees.