As blue states retreat from aggressive climate policies amid rising energy costs, Hawaii may be heading the other way.
SB 1166 would allow property insurers, including entities like the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund (HHRF), to file lawsuits in an attempt to recover costs from energy companies after natural disasters. Proponents argue this would shift costs off policyholders.
However, the scope of what qualifies as a “climate disaster” is where the proposal quickly breaks down as the bill explicitly includes volcanic eruptions and tidal waves – events driven by geologic forces, not greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill attempts to limit this sweeping definition by requiring that events be deemed “substantially more probable or materially intensified” by climate change, using attribution science, a field that remains contested – particularly as a legal standard of causation – and difficult to apply to specific local events. But that qualifier does little to narrow the scope in practice.
The underlying definition of a “climate disaster” still includes virtually any major catastrophe recognized under federal disaster law, including volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, and even explosions “regardless of cause.”
There is no credible scientific consensus linking climate change to an occurrence of a volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Including those events stretches the argument so far that it’s difficult to view SB 1166 as anything other than a desperate new avenue for climate litigation, particularly as the broader state and municipal nuisance campaign loses momentum.
Hawaii AG Office Warns of Unintended Consequences
That expansive approach drew scrutiny during recent legislative testimony.
Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Christopher Han warned lawmakers the bill could create serious legal complications, including the risk of “unlawful double recovery” given Hawaii’s existing climate lawsuit. Because the Attorney General’s office already represents the HHRF, the bill could effectively enable the state to pursue overlapping claims:
STATE REP. SCOT MATAYOSHI: So, if this bill were to pass, HHRF could, with your representation, file a lawsuit under this bill?
DEPUTY AG CHRISTOPHER HAN: I’m not sure if that would be appropriate, given that the AG already filed a lawsuit last year against fossil fuel companies for climate change, on behalf of the state. So a state agency trying to file a separate lawsuit now, could be seen as an attempt at an unlawful double recovery.
Lawmakers also questioned whether insurers would even have a valid legal injury. As discussed during the hearing, insurers pay claims because they are contractually obligated to do so – not because their own property was damaged.
SB 1166 moves beyond that model by creating a new, standalone cause of action for insurers and state-backed entities. That raises a fundamental question: if insurers are no longer clearly acting on behalf of policyholders, what is their independent legal injury?
The insurance industry itself has pushed back. As E&E News reported:
“But insurance officials, instead of being supportive, are warning that legal efforts to make the fossil fuel industry pay for rate increases won’t work — either in court or to fix the national insurance crisis. … The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, which represents many of the nation’s largest insurers, told Hawaii lawmakers that oil and gas company liability would be ‘difficult to prove.’”
Without a clear legal injury, the bill risks creating a scenario where insurers are authorized to sue, but may struggle to establish standing in court, especially when the alleged damages are tied to events with little or no connection to climate change.
Hawaii Moving Opposite Direction of Other Blue States
The stakes are especially high in Hawaii, which already has some of the highest energy costs in the country – with residents facing elevated prices for electricity, gasoline, and everyday goods. Expanding liability for the companies that supply that energy only risks pushing them even higher through increased fuel prices and insurance premiums passed on to consumers.
At a time when blue states across the country are recalibrating climate policies to address affordability concerns, Hawaii’s proposal moves in the opposite direction: expanding liability on far-fetched legal theories while threatening to make an already expensive state even costlier to live in.
Bottom Line: By redefining “climate damages” to include events like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tidal waves, SB 1166 untethers climate litigation from causation. The result is overlapping, state-backed claims that raise serious legal risks and threaten to drive up costs for residents who can least afford it.
