{"id":905862,"date":"2026-07-07T15:31:58","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T21:31:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905862"},"modified":"2026-07-07T15:32:00","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T21:32:00","slug":"pollution-exclusion-in-cgl-policies-illinois","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-in-cgl-policies-illinois\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois\u2019 Highest Court Finds that Government-Authorized Pollution is Still Pollution for Purposes of Pollution Exclusions in CGL Policies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Nick Dolejsi | Zelle<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Illinois Supreme Court recently provided much-needed clarity on the scope and application of pollution exclusions<\/a> in commercial general liability insurance policies.\u00a0 In\u00a0Griffith Foods v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA<\/em>, Case No. 131710 (Ill. Jan. 23, 2026), the court considered the following certified question: \u201cwhat 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.\u201d\u00a0 The court answered: none.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The background and context that led to this certified question is instructive.  The policyholders were facing mass tort claims brought by residents who lived near the policyholders\u2019 medical-equipment sterilization facility. The plaintiff-residents alleged that the policyholders emitted ethylene oxide (EtO) from this facility for more than 35 years, which caused the plaintiff-residents to suffer a range of maladies, including cancer and other serious diseases. However, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) had issued the policyholders a permit to emit EtO from the same facility.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The policyholders tendered the mass tort claims to their liability carrier.  The liability carrier denied coverage under a standard pollution exclusion in its policy, which barred coverage for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cbodily 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response, the policyholders brought a declaratory judgment action in federal district court seeking an order that the insurer had a duty to defend the underlying mass tort claims.  The federal district court sided with the policyholder and found that the pollution exclusion did not apply because \u201cthe policyholder had emitted the EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.\u201d  The insurer appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit recognized an apparent conflict under the Illinois law:<\/p>\n\n\n\n