• What happened: Lexington, Kentucky is the latest city to sue Hyundai and Kia for allegedly creating a public nuisance by selling vehicles that are “too easy to steal.”
• Tell me more: As of now, 17 cities have joined federal multidistrict litigation against Kia and Hyundai, including the city of Baltimore.
• Notice a trend? Rather than using existing laws to address the growing increase in crime in their cities, local governments are increasingly teaming up with plaintiff’s firms to file public nuisance lawsuits against legal products and activities across the country. And some are more litigious than others.
• For those keeping score at home, Baltimore has sued:
  • Kia and Hyundai for the public nuisance of car theft;
  • PepsiCo, Frito Lay and others for the public nuisance of litter;
  • ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron for the public nuisance of climate change.
  • 👀 “A municipality’s soft-on-crime policies certainly aren’t the car manufacturers’ fault.” Read more from Sen. Mayes Middleton in the TLR Advocate
• TLR Thoughts: Without legislative action establishing guardrails to help courts determine products and activities to which public nuisance lawsuits do not apply, we can expect to see more and more of these lawsuits filed around the country.

Read the full article here.

• What happened: A Maryland state judge has dismissed Baltimore’s climate nuisance lawsuit–the first such dismissal in the nation–saying the litigation went “beyond the limits of state law.”
  • While federal judges have previously dismissed lawsuits that made state-based nuisance claims, this case marks the first time a state judge has done so.
• A troubling trend: Public nuisance lawsuits—including those related to climate change—have evolved as a means for local and state governments to attempt to pad their budgets and for activists to bypass the appropriate legislative process to target legal products and activities they don’t like.

• Worth mentioning: While this is a step in the right direction, dozens of other climate nuisance cases remain pending. A coalition of 20 attorneys general (Including Texas) has filed an amicus brief in one of the cases arguing that states and local governments are improperly attempting to regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions under state law, which is a federal responsibility.

• In her own words: “The explanation by Baltimore that it only seeks to address and hold Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.”–Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown

• TLR Thoughts: It will likely take years to resolve the pending climate nuisance cases. With thousands of Texas jobs at risk, the Texas Legislature should establish guardrails to clarify cases the public nuisance doctrine should not apply to—namely those targeting legal or permitted activities.

Read the full article here.

• What’s happening: As Baltimore officials appeal last week’s dismissal of the city’s climate nuisance lawsuit against oil and gas companies, let’s take a closer look at Judge Videtta A. Brown’s key rulings in the case.

• Out of scope: Judge Brown noted out-of-state emissions were beyond the scope of state court and interstate pollution was preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.
  • “Global pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states.”

• • Brown ruled against Baltimore’s claim under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, citing the three-year statute of limitations and stating the city was aware of fossil fuel impacts for more than three years before filing.
  • “Baltimore does not allege that its injury comes from its own use of or direct exposure to Defendant’s fossil fuels but from consumers’ decisions to use fossil fuels across the globe for many years.”
• Public nuisance doesn’t apply: Brown ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are not a nuisance under state law, despite the city’s claims.
• “Fossil fuels are a lawful consumer product guided and regulated by the EPA. Baltimore does not allege that the Defendants directly released a hazardous chemical into the waters or lands of Baltimore at the point of sale.”

• What’s next: The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the city and county of  Honolulu’s climate nuisance lawsuit and has requested input from the Biden administration, presumably because of the case’s impact on national energy policy.

• TLR Thoughts: Courts have repeatedly ruled that climate change is a major global policy that needs to be addressed by the appropriate legislative or regulatory bodies.
  • For example, in 2021, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed New York City’s climate nuisance lawsuit, emphasizing that climate change is a global issue best regulated by federal and international law, not state courts.
  • BUT… that hasn’t stopped dozens of cities, states and local governments from continuing to file climate nuisance lawsuits across the country in an attempt to pad government coffers and circumvent the legislative process to target legal products and activities.
  • Without legislative action, we can expect more public nuisance lawsuits against various industries to continue.

Read the full article here.

• Here’s what happened: A recent study found that Texas is a leading state for nuclear verdicts, with 130 reported verdicts totaling $16 billion from 2013 to 2022.
• Dive deeper: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributes anchoring techniques—where plaintiff’s attorneys suggest specific, often arbitrary amounts for damages—with helping drive up the costs of both settlements and lawsuit awards.
  • In one case, a plaintiff’s attorney suggested the jury award “two cents” per mile driven by the defendant’s trucks, resulting in a $39 million jury award. The Texas Supreme Court later ruled that these “unsubstantiated anchors” and other tactics required a new trial.
• TLR Thoughts: The Texas Legislature should take a close look at the factors contributing to nuclear verdicts in the Lone Star State, including anchoring, rampant attorney advertising, inflated medical damages, and others.

Read the full article here.

•  What happened: Baltimore city officials are suing PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and six other companies under public nuisance claims related to product packaging litter.
• Tell me more: The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount in financial compensation, alleging the companies knew discarded plastic would litter streets and contaminate waterways, leaving the local government with the bill for cleanup.
• Not so fast… A company can’t control whether you and I dispose of our trash appropriately once we’ve bought their product. And litter and pollution are already illegal under state and federal laws, and those statutes are a more efficient and appropriate way to address these problems. Catch up in the TLR Advocate
• Ring a bell? Plaintiff’s attorneys have paired up with state and local governments to file public nuisance lawsuits against companies that are producing lawful products, hoping to score a big payout to fill the government’s coffers and pad the plaintiff’s lawyers’ pockets.
• Worth noting: Baltimore filed a similar lawsuit in 2022 against six cigarette manufacturers, citing their role in littering plastic fiber cigarette filters. The case remains active and recently returned to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City following a federal judge’s decision.
• What about Texas? A 2023 bill would have created guardrails to help courts determine the type of cases to which public nuisance lawsuits do not apply. TLR intends to pursue similar legislation in the 2025 session.

Read the full article here.

• What happened: Plaintiff’s firms’ aggressive tactics to inflate damages in insurance-related litigation have led to an 80% increase in average bodily injury claims since 2014 and contributed to $4 billion in commercial auto insurance costs in 2021.
  • These abusive lawsuits, paired with other external market pressures—like inflation and costlier natural disasters—are leading to unsustainable insurance markets across the country.
• Sticker shock: Nationwide, auto insurance rates have surged by 46.2% since January 2020, while homeowner premiums have risen by 37.8% since 2019.
• In Texas, homeowner premiums have spiked by 54.5% since 2019, ranking it as the third highest increase among all states in the country.
• Around the country: Gov. Ron DeSantis implemented legal reforms in 2022 to stabilize Florida’s insurance market. These reforms resulted in a smaller increase in homeowner premiums despite remaining significantly higher than the national average.
  • In 2021, Florida saw over 100,000 lawsuits totaling $7.8 billion in damages, surpassing all other states combined, driving up homeowner premiums.
• What about Texas? Texans are no strangers to severe weather – that’s why we pay some of the highest property insurance rates in the nation. This lawsuit abuse has serious consequences for every property insurance consumer in our state.

Read the full article here.