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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
