The catastrophic floods that swept through South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province in April 2022 – the deadliest in more than a century – have now become the basis for two unprecedented lawsuits by insurers against state entities. The outcome may determine not only who ultimately pays for climate-linked losses, but also how the global insurance industry positions itself in the age of escalating catastrophe risk.
The storms that deluged the port city of Durban claimed 544 lives, left more than 40,000 people homeless and caused devastation to factories, logistics hubs and informal settlements.
More than 4,000 properties were destroyed or severely damaged. Toyota South Africa Motors, one of the region’s largest employers, was forced to suspend production for three months, scrapping thousands of vehicles.
Insurers footing the bill are now seeking to recover their losses in what may be the most ambitious litigation yet to connect climate-linked extreme weather with public infrastructure liability.
Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance, which insured Toyota’s operations, filed a claim in July 2025 seeking R6.5 billion (£266.5 million) in damages. A month later, Norton Rose Fulbright launched a second claim for R540 million (£22.1 million) on behalf of the insurers of packaging companies Corruseal Properties and Corruseal Corrugated KZN. Both cases target the eThekwini Municipality, the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Transport and state-owned logistics group Transnet.
At the heart of both actions is an allegation that the authorities failed to maintain stormwater channels and related infrastructure, allowing floodwaters to swamp industrial zones.
For insurers, this litigation is not framed as an attempt to hold governments liable for climate change itself. Instead, the argument is one of ordinary negligence: that foreseeable rainfall risks, intensified by global warming, were compounded by neglected canals and drainage systems.
The strategy has several parts:
These are not easy thresholds. In past flood disputes, courts have been reluctant to find municipalities liable where natural forces – such as wildfire or steep terrain – were dominant causes of damage.
One distinguishing feature of the Durban litigation is the incorporation of climate attribution science. Researchers have concluded that rainfall during the two-day storm was between 40% and 107% heavier than it would have been without human-induced climate change. Warm ocean currents, altered wind patterns and a moisture-laden atmosphere all contributed to the disaster.
For insurers, this evidence strengthens the case that extreme events were both foreseeable and should have been anticipated in the design and upkeep of infrastructure. At the same time, it raises difficult legal questions: to what standard must governments maintain assets – against a one-in-50-year flood, or against rarer climate-amplified events?
The Durban lawsuits are unusual in that they seek damages, not policy change. In Europe, cases such as Urgenda v. Netherlands succeeded on human rights grounds, compelling governments to adopt tougher climate policies. In the United States, youth plaintiffs in Held v. Montana won a declaration that fossil fuel permitting violated constitutional rights to a healthy environment.
By contrast, the South African cases align more closely with tort law: insurers are testing whether governments can be made to pay when neglected defences turn climate-driven weather into billion-rand losses. If successful, the precedent could embolden similar claims in jurisdictions where flood protection and stormwater infrastructure are failing under pressure.
For insurers, the stakes go beyond recouping payouts. These cases signal a willingness to use litigation as a tool to drive accountability for infrastructure resilience. If governments know they face financial exposure, the argument goes, they may invest more seriously in adaptation.
But there is also a risk of unintended consequences. The very state entities being sued are those responsible for maintaining defences. Multi-billion rand awards could further strain budgets and delay investment in the infrastructure needed to mitigate the next disaster.
Ultimately, the Durban cases are about who shoulders the cost of climate extremes – the private sector, the public purse, or both. For the insurance industry, they mark an important test: can negligence claims tied to climate attribution succeed at scale?
Even if the lawsuits fail, they signal a shift in how insurers view their role in the climate liability landscape. With global catastrophe losses climbing, insurers are no longer limiting their response to repricing or withdrawing cover. Increasingly, they are turning to the courts to demand that governments share the burden.
