USA – ILLINOIS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Everett J. Cygal, Daniel J. Schufreider, Jasmine K. Dela Luna, Sarah M. Oligmueller and Christopher L. Gerardi, ArentFox Schiff LLP
ArentFox Schiff LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 USA
Tel: +1 312 258 5500 Fax: +1 312 258 5600 Email: daniel.schufreider@afslaw.com Web: www.afslaw.com
Introduction In 2025, Illinois law saw significant developments rele- vant to the insurance and reinsurance industries. Chief among these is Griffith Foods, in which the Seventh Circuit certified to the Illinois Supreme Court the ques- tion of whether a standard pollution exclusion applied to the insured’s emission of pollutants subject to a permit issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). The Illinois Supreme Court will soon decide this issue in a landmark case for the insurance industry. Other notable cases decided in state and federal courts have provided guidance on Illinois law impact- ing the insurance industry, including whether a cover- age disagreement may be resolved through appraisal, whether certain policy exclusions applied to claims against insureds under the Illinois Biometric Informa- tion Privacy Act (BIPA) and whether businesses could seek business interruption coverage resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns. This article discusses Griffith Foods in detail and high- lights a handful of other decisions and developments impacting Illinois insurance and reinsurance law this past year. Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2026 IL 131710 (on certification by 134 F.4th 483 (7th Cir. 2025)) What role does the existence of a government per- mit authorising emissions have in the application of a standard CGL policy’s pollution exclusion? Under the Illinois Supreme Court’s 23 January 2026 deci- sion answering a certified question from the Seventh
Circuit, the answer is none: if an emission constitutes “pollution” as defined in a policy, it makes no differ- ence if the emission is permitted ( Griffith Foods Int’l, Inc. v Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA , 2026 IL 131710, ¶ 31). The Illinois Supreme Court held that whether the pol- lution is government permitted is irrelevant to the exclusion’s applicability. The ruling is a highly signifi- cant victory for Illinois insurers whose policies have pollution exclusions, as it significantly limits defence obligations and may leave policyholders exposed for pollution liabilities even when emissions remain within government-permitted bounds. Underlying tort litigation Beginning in September 2018, over 800 people living or working in the suburb of Willowbrook, Illinois, sued Griffith Foods International and Sterigenics US LLC (“Griffith Foods” and “Sterigenics”, respectively) in Illi- nois state court for injuries arising from the emission of ethylene oxide (EtO) – a carcinogen – in amounts allowed by a permit issued by the IEPA, from a facility owned by Griffith Foods (and subsequently owned by Sterigenics). The complaints allege that Griffith Foods and Sterigenics intentionally emitted EtO into the air in Willowbrook over a span of 35 years as part of their regular operation of sterilising medical equipment. The state court consolidated the high volume of suits, and the plaintiffs brought a “Master Complaint”. National Union Fire Insurance Company (“National Union”) was among the 13 insurers that issued CGL policies to Griffith Foods and Sterigenics during the time when the Willowbrook facility was operational,
541 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook