After the recent tsunami disaster many environmental groups are claiming that this just proves their point about global warming ruining our planet and that these sorts of things will become more commonplace if we do nothing to curb pollution. Surprisingly, Insurance companies are also jumping on this bandwagon so they can use their oh-so-deep pockets to sue large industrial companies that they say are indirectly responsible for billions of dollars in natural disaster claims they must pay (Hurricanes, Blizzards, etc.).
This particular tsunami was a result of earthquakes, which is a result of tectonic movement, something that is uninfluenced by global warming (although it can influence global warming).
Given this fact, Should large industrial companies be made to pay for natural disasters that they indirectly caused through pollution and the resultant global warming, or is this just a bunch of bullcrap?

That is (close to) the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Private homes and cars also impact global warming, are we going to make them pay when a disaster happens?

they shud cover natural disasters like this....wont the compnies go bankrupt if they cover something like this though? wont it be to much at once?

These industries and the workers who they employ are no more guilty than those who buy the company's product or service.

That said, I think a lawsuit brought to a major corporation might spark an interesting debate about whether they can legally prove that global warming is affected by our industries enough to make a difference.