Judge Slams Pa. County For ‘Sneaky’ Climate Suit End Run

Articles

Law360, Doylestown, Pa. (March 24, 2025, 6:03 PM EDT) — A Pennsylvania state judge seemed skeptical Monday that Bucks County’s Big-Tobacco style lawsuit against oil companies should move forward, calling out the county for what he said was its commissioners’ attempt to avoid scrutiny by filing the lawsuit without first providing the public adequate notice.

Bucks County Court of Common Pleas Judge Stephen A. Corr’s remarks came in a hearing on bids to dismiss the county’s suit against BP, Chevron and other large oil companies Monday. The county’s suit alleges that oil companies downplayed the environmental dangers of fossil fuel use, much like big tobacco companies hid the health risks of smoking cigarettes.

“This is a sneaky way of doing things. That’s the problem,” Judge Corr told counsel for the county.

The hearing kicked off with Frederick P. Santarelli Jr. of Elliott Greenleaf PC, representing the oil companies, calling the county’s suit “undemocratic” for allegedly violating the state’s Sunshine Act. The act requires agencies to provide advance public notice of official actions and to hold open and public meetings to discuss them.

Santarelli argued that the county’s use of a consent agenda — something generally used as an efficiency tool to move forward noncontroversial or routine agency business — to notify the residents that the county was hiring a law firm to handle environmental litigation provided only vague information and was really an attempt to duck public feedback before announcing the lawsuit through a press conference.

“Are you saying that politicians did something secretly and then held a press conference? Wow, I’m shocked,” the judge remarked. Santarelli said that the move “flies in the face” of the law and that the only remedy is to dismiss the case.

Counsel for Bucks County, Jacyln Grieser, appeared to have a tough time convincing the judge that the county provided adequate notice to the public about that lawsuit’s aims.

Grieser told Judge Corr that the county went “above and beyond” what the Sunshine Act requires and didn’t disclose certain things because the commissioners didn’t want to “project the value of the case.”

“How is the public supposed to ask intelligent questions about this?” Judge Corr asked. ” … You go out, and you tout transparency, and then you’re hiding things.”

Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, also representing the defendants, asked the court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the effects of climate change are not limited to Bucks County and that counties, states, and countries all over the world contribute to the problem.

He also urged the judge to reject the county’s argument that the case isn’t about emissions, but about the oil companies’ alleged “campaign of deception” to hide fossil fuels’ role in climate change.

“Why is this different from the tobacco litigation?” Judge Corr asked.

Boutrous said that unlike when the tobacco industry claimed that cigarettes were not harmful and even promoted them as healthy, people have known about the harmful effects of burning fuel for decades.

“This wasn’t some secret, that nobody knew about climate change.” Boutrous said. “It goes back to the ’60s.”

However, Daniel Flynn of DiCello Levitt LLP, another attorney for the county, disagreed with Boutrous’ characterization of the suit.

“It’s not about stopping climate change,” he said. “It’s about Bucks County surviving climate change.”

Bucks County brought its lawsuit against BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Philips 66, Shell and trade organization American Petroleum Institute on March 25, 2024.

The suit claims that the oil companies deceived consumers into thinking that fossil fuels were safe, therefore contributing to their continued use and worsening effects of climate change. Those effects, in the form of extreme weather, have cost the county’s taxpayers money, Bucks County alleged.

“These companies have known since at least the 1950s that their ways of doing business were having calamitous effects on our planet, and rather than change what they were doing or raise the alarm, they lied to all of us,” said County Commissioner Gene DiGirolamo at the time of the lawsuit’s filing.

“The taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for these companies and their greed.”

The defendants subsequently filed preliminary objections, which were the subject of Monday’s hearing.

Law360 is following climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel companies as they make their way through state and federal courts. Keep tabs on case developments and our coverage with our Climate Change Torts Tracker.

The county is represented by Amy M. Fitzpatrick and Jaclyn C. Grieser of its solicitor’s office, and Adam J. Levitt, Daniel Rock Flynn and Anna Claire Skinner of DiCello Levitt LLP.

BP is represented by Anthony M. Pratt of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The API is represented by Rebecca Jo Price of Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA.

Chevron is represented by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Frederick P. Santarelli Jr. of Elliott Greenleaf PC.

ConocoPhilips is represented by Daniel C. Fleming of Wong Fleming PC.

Exxon Mobil is represented by Rebecca Trela of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Phillips66 is represented by Mathew J. McHugh of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP.

Shell is represented by Mark Labrum of Fennigan Dempster & Coval LLP.

The case is Bucks County v. BP PLC et al., case number 2024-01836-0000, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

Article published by Law360 by P.J. D’Annunzio