3 ms·
Novel, but likely ultimately to fail. IIUC, the CEO is claiming liability to PG&E is negated by the overall affect of climate change. That would likely have to
by Simulacra 8y ago
Novel, but likely ultimately to fail. IIUC, the CEO is claiming liability to PG&E is negated by the overall affect of climate change. That would likely have to be argued in court but that undertaking sounds quite massive, and would require a tremendous amount of science. What I think is really going on here is that she's trying to find someone else to take the blame, financially, and probably pushing the state to indemnify PG&E. A novel idea, but I think a court would rule this an act of God and tell PG&E that's what its insurance is for.
- jessaustin 8y agoShe isn't setting this up as a court case. She's trying to manufacture enough political cover for the governor and various other cronies to plausibly save her firm from its self-imposed predicament. They can pass any law they want, if the voting public is confused enough.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoso confused we think its very nice of the legislative branch (or is it the executive) to show the judicial branch how its done?
- jessaustin 8y ago"California Bill Would Shield PG&E, Edison from Some Wildfire Liability" https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2018/04/26/487452.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2018/04/26/487452... On a national level, the same thing happened for ATT etc. when Room 641A was exposed to public scrutiny. Otherwise there would have been lots of lawsuits on that. Actually, aside from the post facto nature of these particular laws, I'm glad that the courts have to defer to the legislature in defining the Law. Judges are on average even more corrupt than legislators.