See the video at https://lnkd.in/grQRRWa5 and at https://lnkd.in/gH8gtAr2, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Exclusions Must be Enforced as Written
Post number 5272
Pollution With a State Permit is Still Excluded
In Griffith Foods International, Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, Pa, No. 131710, Supreme Court of Illinois, 2026 IL 131710 (January 23, 2026) Griffith Foods International, Inc., and its successor Sterigenics U.S., LLC, operated a medical-equipment sterilization facility in Willowbrook, Illinois. Local residents alleged that for over 35 years, the facility emitted ethylene oxide (EtO), which they claimed caused cancer and other serious illnesses.
The policyholders sought a declaration that National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, was obligated to defend them in the underlying mass tort litigation, based on two CGL policies issued for the facility between September 1983 and September 1985.
The two policies required the insurer to “defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of *** bodily injury” that “occur[red] during the policy period” and “personal injury” arising out of “offenses committed during the policy period.” The CGL policies included a standard pollution exclusion, which is the subject of this appeal. The pollution exclusion bars coverage for “bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water.”
THE QUESTION FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
“In light of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in [American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill.2d 473 (1997)] what relevance, if any, does a permit or regulation authorizing emissions (generally or at any particular levels) play in assessing the application of a pollution exclusion within a standard-form commercial general liability policy?”
LEGAL ISSUE
The key legal issue was the interpretation of the pollution exclusion in the CGL policies, which excludescoverage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from the release of pollutants, including toxic chemicals and gases, into the environment.
ANALYSIS
The Court reasoned that the pollution exclusion is triggered by the nature of the contaminant released and the resulting injury, not by whether the release was authorized or regulated. Past decisions confirmed that the exclusion applies regardless of compliance with permits or regulatory standards. Thus, the presence of a permit or regulation authorizing emissions does not influence the scope or application of the exclusion; coverage is barred so long as the injury results from pollutants as defined in the policy.
OPINION
The Supreme Court of Illinois, responding to the certified question from the Seventh Circuit, held that a permit or regulation authorizing emissions — whether generally or at specific levels — does not affect the interpretation or application of the pollution exclusion clause in a standard-form commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. The Court’s answer was clear: such regulatory authorizations are irrelevant when determining coverage under the pollution exclusion.
The plain language of the pollution exclusion states that coverage is barred for litigation involving “the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water.”
The fact that the IEPA permitted the EtO emissions does not change this analysis. The pollution exclusion says nothing about permitted or authorized pollution, and courts must not inject terms and conditions different from those agreed upon by the parties.
In addition, the pollution exclusion in CGL policies was drafted in response to the insurance industry’s concerns about increasing, costly environmental litigation. Declining to apply the pollution exclusion simply because the pollution was permitted by the State would undermine the pollution exclusion’s very purpose. In sum, in determining whether the pollution exclusion in a CGL policy applies, the Supreme Court held that it is irrelevant whether the underlying pollution is permitted or not.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court answered the certified question as follows: “a permit or regulation authorizing emissions (generally or at any particular levels) has no relevance in assessing the application of a pollution exclusion within a standard form commercial general liability policy.”
ZALMA OPINION
The Supreme Court of Illinois interpreted the insurance policies as they are written and refused to add language that was not in the policy to provide coverage for the alleged polluters. The polluters claimed having a permit changed the fact that they polluted the atmosphere. No coverage because the exclusion was clear and unambiguous.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
