{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:b2fd08ea74c4be91498506e97f9f6accf55063534b71e78ef6cf15afa3c96a92","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ill-131710-2026-01-23","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Illinois Official Reports","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"Griffith Foods International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"of Pittsburgh, PA, 2026 IL 131710","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"Caption in Supreme","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Court:","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"GRIFFITH FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Appellees, v.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"PITTSBURGH, PA, Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Docket No. 131710","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Filed January 23, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Decision Under","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Review","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Seventh Circuit; heard in that court on appeal from the United States","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Hon. Mary","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Rowland, Judge, presiding.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Judgment Certified question answered.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Counsel on","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Appeal","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Michael T. Reagan, of Ottawa, and Thomas H. Dupree Jr. (pro hac","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"vice), Nick Harper, Aaron Hauptman, Aly Cox, and John N. Reed, of","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Scott L. Howie and Karen Kies DeGrand, of Donohue Brown Smyth","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"LLC, Gary Feinerman, of Latham & Watkins LLP, Christopher B.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Wilson, Bradley Dlatt, and Kahin Gabriel Tong, of Perkins Coie LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"and Andrew G. May, Paul Walker-Bright, and Steven F. Pflaum, of","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, all of Chicago, Margaret A. Upshaw","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"and Peter A. Prindiville, of Latham & Watkins LLP, and Jonathan G.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Hardin (pro hac vice), of Perkins Coie LLP, both of Washington, D.C.,","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"James M. Davis, of Perkins Coie LLP, of Seattle, Washington, Sopen","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"B. Shah (pro hac vice), of Perkins Coie LLP, of Madison, Wisconsin,","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"and Kerry James Sullivan (pro hac vice) and Matthew A. Chiricosta","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"(pro hac vice), of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, of Cleveland, Ohio,","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"for appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Michael Resis, of Amundsen Davis, of Chicago, for amici curiae","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"American Property Casualty Insurance Association et al.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"Adam H. Fleischer, Mark A. Deptula, and Kristin M. Johnson","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Holevas, of BatesCarey LLP, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Swiss RE","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Corporate Solutions Elite Insurance Corporation.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Michael M. Marick, of Skarzynski Marick & Black LLP, of Chicago,","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"for amicus curiae Zurich American Insurance Company.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"J. Timothy Eaton, Jonathan B. Amarilio, and Adam W. Decker, of Taft","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"Stettinius & Hollister LLP, of Chicago, for amici curiae the Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"Manufacturers’ Association et al.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"John S. Vishneski, Stanley C. Nardoni, Claire M. Whitehead, and Jake","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"A. Ziering, of Reed Smith LLP, of Chicago, for amicus curiae United","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Policyholders.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Ryan D. Andrews and Alexander G. Tievsky, of Edelson PC, of","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Chicago, for amicus curiae Vantage Ethylene Oxide Settlement","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Participants.","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Brent W. Vincent and Matthew Walker, of Lathrop GPM LLP, of","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Chicago, and Alana M. McMullin and Noah H. Nash, of Lathrop GPM","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for amici curiae Chemical Industry","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Council of Illinois et al.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Patrick A. Salvi II, of Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard P.C., of Chicago,","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Justices JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the judgment of the court, with","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Chief Justice Neville and Justices Theis, Overstreet, Holder White,","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"and O’Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Justice Rochford took no part in the decision.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"¶ 1 This case is before us on a question of Illinois law certified by the United States Court of","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 20 (eff. Aug. 1, 1992).","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"The certified question is:","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"“In light of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in American States Insurance Co.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"v. Koloms, 687 N.E.2d 72 (1997), and mindful of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (2011), what relevance, if any, does a permit or","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"regulation authorizing emissions (generally or at any particular levels) play in assessing","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"the application of a pollution exclusion within a standard-form commercial general","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"liability policy?”","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"¶ 2 For the following reasons, we answer the certified question as follows: a permit or","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"regulation authorizing emissions (generally or at any particular levels) has no relevance in","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"assessing the application of a pollution exclusion within a standard-form commercial general","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"liability policy.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"¶ 3 BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"¶ 4 The appellees, Griffith Foods International, Inc., and its corporate successor, Sterigenics","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"U.S., LLC (the policyholders), brought a consolidated action in the federal district court for","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"the Northern District of Illinois against the appellant, National Union Fire Insurance Company","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"of Pittsburgh, PA (insurer), seeking declarations that the insurer had a duty to defend the","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"policyholders in an underlying mass tort case. The underlying tort litigation arose when","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"residents of Willowbrook, Illinois, alleged that the policyholders had emitted ethylene oxide","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"(EtO) from their medical-equipment sterilization facility for more than 35 years and that these","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"emissions had caused nearby residents to experience a range of illnesses, including cancer and","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"other serious diseases.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"¶ 5 The insurer issued two commercial general liability (CGL) policies for the medical","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"sterilization facility covering the period from September 1983 to September 1985. These","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"policies required the insurer to “defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"account of *** bodily injury” that “occur[red] during the policy period” and “personal injury”","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"arising out of “offenses committed during the policy period.”","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"¶ 6 The CGL policies included a standard pollution exclusion, which is the subject of this","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"appeal. The pollution exclusion bars coverage for","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"“bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases,","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"atmosphere or any water course or body of water.”","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"¶ 7 When the policyholders sought a declaration that the insurer had a duty to defend them in","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"the underlying tort litigation, the insurer refused to defend based on the pollution exclusion.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"The federal district court held that the insurer had a duty to defend, ruling that the pollution","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"exclusion in the CGL policies did not apply because the policyholders had emitted the EtO","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"pursuant to a permit issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"¶ 8 The insurer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Griffith","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Foods International Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 134 F.4th 483","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"(7th Cir. 2025). In its review, the Seventh Circuit noted that this court’s decision in American","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (1997), “stand[s] centerstage in this dispute.”","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Griffith Foods, 134 F.4th at 490. The Seventh Circuit explained that Koloms “concerned","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"whether injuries caused by carbon monoxide emissions from a defective furnace *** fell within","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion for duty to defend purposes.” Id. Ultimately, as described","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"by the Seventh Circuit, the Koloms court “read the pollution exclusion as applying only to","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"‘injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution’ ” and therefore found that the pollution","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"exclusion did not bar coverage for litigation regarding carbon monoxide emissions from a","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"defective furnace. Id. at 491 (quoting Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d at 494).","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"¶ 9 The Seventh Circuit further stated that, if Koloms stood as the “only pertinent authority on","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"the question presented, we would hold that the pollution exclusion in the CGL policies at issue","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"here applies to exclude the possibility of coverage for the bodily injuries alleged ***—thereby","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"relieving [the insurer] of any duty to defend [the policyholders].” Id. “But [the policyholders]","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"implore us to pause and consider an [Illinois Appellate Court] decision that *** interpreted","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"and applied Koloms,” Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 2011 IL App (3d)","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"100380. Griffith Foods, 134 F.4th at 491. The Seventh Circuit explained that, in Imperial","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Marble, the Illinois Appellate Court held that the pollution exclusion was ambiguous as to","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"whether emission of hazardous materials in levels permitted by the IEPA constitutes traditional","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"environmental pollution in accordance with Koloms. Id. The appellate court resolved the","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"ambiguity in favor of the policyholders and therefore held that the insurer had a duty to defend","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"against the underlying claims. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"¶ 10 The Seventh Circuit continued: “Further muddying the waters is [the Seventh Circuit’s","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"decision] applying Illinois law and interpreting a CGL pollution exclusion but coming after","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"and taking an altogether different view than the one offered by Imperial Marble,” Scottsdale","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Indemnity Co. v. Village of Crestwood, 673 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2012). Griffith Foods, 134 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"at 492. The Seventh Circuit explained that, in Scottsdale, it rejected the policyholder’s","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"contention that contaminated drinking water was not pollution because the amount of pollutant","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"was below the maximum level permitted by environmental regulation. Id. “For purposes of the","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"pollution exclusion, we explained, all that mattered was that the suits alleged the contaminated","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"water caused the underlying injuries.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"¶ 11 The Seventh Circuit in this case stated that it was submitting the certified question to this","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"court for clarification because “Koloms goes a long way in telling us how to interpret a standard","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"pollution exclusion in a CGL insurance policy, but, underscored by the tension between","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Imperial Marble and Scottsdale, the exact scope of traditional environmental pollution remains","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"unclear, and leaves us genuinely uncertain as to how to proceed.”1 (Internal quotation marks","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"omitted.) Id.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"¶ 12 This court agreed to answer the certified question. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 20 (eff. Aug. 1, 1992).","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"The following organizations filed amici briefs in support of the insurer’s position: (1) Zurich","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"American Insurance Company; (2) Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Elite Insurance Corporation;","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"and (3) the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the Complex Insurance Claims","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"Litigation Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Illinois Insurance Association. The following organizations filed amici briefs in support of the","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"policyholders’ position: (1) the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association; (2) Chemical Industry","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"Council of Illinois and the American Chemistry Council; (3) Vantage Ethylene Oxide","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Settlement Participants; (4) United Policyholders; and (5) the Illinois Manufacturers’","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"Association, Medline Industries, LP, Vantage Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Sterilization Services","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"of Tennessee, Inc., and iBio. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010).","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"¶ 13 ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"¶ 14 The certified question before us is:","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"“In light of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in [Koloms], and mindful of","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"[Imperial Marble], what relevance, if any, does a permit or regulation authorizing","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"emissions (generally or at any particular levels) play in assessing the application of a","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"pollution exclusion within a standard-form commercial general liability policy?”","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"¶ 15 Certified questions are questions of law that this court reviews de novo. Martin v. Goodrich","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Corp., 2025 IL 130509, ¶ 11. The certified question also involves the construction of an","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"insurance policy, which presents an issue of law that is similarly reviewed de novo. Valley","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Forge Insurance Co. v. Swiderski Electronics, Inc., 223 Ill. 2d 352, 360 (2006).","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"¶ 16 We begin our analysis by reviewing the cases that prompted the certified question, starting","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"with Koloms. In Koloms, several employees of a commercial building brought a lawsuit against","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"the building’s owners alleging that the owners had negligently maintained a furnace, which","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"had emitted carbon monoxide and other noxious fumes and made them ill. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"at 476. The building’s owners sought to have their insurer defend the litigation, but the insurer","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"refused. Id. at 476-77. The insurer maintained that coverage was unavailable based on the","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"pollution exclusion in the building owners’ CGL policy and, specifically, that the emission of","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"carbon monoxide fumes from the furnace constituted the “ ‘release’ ” of a gaseous “ ‘irritant","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"or contaminant’ ” within the meaning of the pollution exclusion. Id. at 477. Both the trial and","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"appellate courts rejected this argument and concluded that the pollution exclusion language","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"should be construed in favor of coverage. Id. at 478.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"¶ 17 On appeal, this court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts. Id. at 494. In so doing,","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"we reviewed the drafting history of the pollution exclusion in CGL policies. Id. at 489. This","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"court noted that, beginning in the 1960s, the United States Congress substantially amended the","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (1994)) to help protect and enhance the quality of the","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"country’s air resources, especially in the wake of major environmental disasters. Koloms, 177","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"1We note that, with respect to the underlying tort case out of which the certified question arose, the","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"policyholders settled with the plaintiffs and paid damages; thus only the insurer’s duty to defend is","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"before the Seventh Circuit.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Ill. 2d at 490. This court explained that “[t]he passage of these amendments, which included","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"provisions for cleaning up the environment, imposed greater economic burdens on insurance","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"underwriters, particularly those drafting standard-form CGL policies.” Id. In response, the","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"insurance industry drafted the pollution exclusion into standard CGL policies, with the","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"predominant motivation being the avoidance of the enormous expense resulting from the","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"explosion of environmental litigation. See id. at 490-93 (citing Weaver v. Royal Insurance Co.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"of America, 674 A.2d 975 (N.H. 1996)). In light of this drafting history, this court stated: “We","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"would be remiss, therefore, if we were to simply look to the bare words of the exclusion, ignore","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"its raison d’ être, and apply it to situations which do not remotely resemble traditional","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"environmental contamination.” Id. at 493. We noted that the pollution exclusion had a","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"“potentially limitless application” but should only apply to those hazards traditionally","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"associated with environmental pollution and nothing beyond. Id. at 489.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"¶ 18 This court in Koloms therefore concluded that the pollution exclusion in CGL policies","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"applies only to those injuries caused by “traditional environmental pollution.” Id. at 494. Based","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"on that reasoning, we held that the accidental release of carbon monoxide due to a broken","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"furnace does not constitute traditional environmental pollution. Id. Therefore, the pollution","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"exclusion did not apply under the facts presented in the Koloms case, and the insurer had a","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"duty to defend. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"¶ 19 We next consider Imperial Marble, 2011 IL App (3d) 100380. In Imperial Marble, the","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"insurer sought a declaration that, because of the pollution exclusion in the policyholder’s CGL","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"policy, it had no duty to defend the policyholder in an underlying action alleging injuries","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"caused by emissions from the policyholder’s manufacturing facility. Id. ¶ 3. Similar to the facts","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"of the underlying case that raises the certified question before us now, the emissions in Imperial","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"Marble were authorized under a permit issued by the IEPA. Id. ¶ 20. Based on the fact that it","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"held a permit, the policyholder in Imperial Marble argued that its emission did not qualify as","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"pollutants under the pollution exclusion. Id. The appellate court concluded that “[t]he policy’s","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"pollution exclusion is arguably ambiguous as to whether the emission of hazardous materials","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"in levels permitted by an IEPA permit constitute traditional environmental pollution excluded","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"under the policy” pursuant to Koloms. Id. ¶ 22. Because ambiguities must be resolved in favor","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"of the policyholder, the appellate court found that the pollution exclusion did not apply and,","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"consequently, the insurer had a duty to defend. Id. ¶ 23.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"¶ 20 In another case, Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bible Pork, Inc., 2015 IL App (5th)","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"140211, ¶ 41, the appellate court followed Imperial Marble’s analysis. Thus, the appellate","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"court there also concluded that the pollution exclusion is ambiguous as to whether the emission","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"of hazardous materials in levels authorized by an IEPA permit is “traditional environmental","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"pollution” as defined in Koloms. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The appellate court","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"noted that, when there are ambiguities in an insurance policy, the policy is liberally construed","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"in favor of the policyholder. Id. ¶ 38. Accordingly, the appellate court in Bible Pork held that","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"the pollution exclusion did not apply to the permitted pollution in that case. Id. ¶ 41.","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"¶ 21 Lastly, we analyze Scottsdale, 673 F.3d 715. In Scottsdale, insurers sought a declaration","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"that, because of the pollution exclusion, they had no duty to defend the policyholders in","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"underlying lawsuits alleging injuries caused by contaminated groundwater. Id. at 716. The","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"policyholders, in response, argued that the pollution exclusion did not apply, in part because","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"the amount of contaminant in the water supply was below the maximum level permitted by","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"environmental regulations and so this was “not a pollution case at all.” Id. at 721. The Seventh","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"Circuit rejected this argument, stating:","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"“either the [contaminant] caused injuries, maybe because the relevant regulations are","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"too lax, or it did not and the tort suits will fail. All that counts is that the suits are","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"premised on a claim that the [contaminant] caused injuries for which the plaintiffs are","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"seeking damages, and that claim triggers the pollution exclusion.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Further, the Seventh Circuit stressed that the very nature of the underlying complaints revealed","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"it was a pollution case and that the complaints, which described the nature and effects of the","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"contaminated groundwater in detail, “inadvertently but unmistakably acknowledge[d] the","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"applicability of the pollution exclusion.” Id. The Seventh Circuit therefore affirmed the lower","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"courts’ holdings that the claims against the policyholders alleging groundwater contamination","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"fell within the scope of the pollution exclusion. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"¶ 22 With the foregoing cases in mind, we now turn to the certified question before us. The","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"insurer urges us to answer the certified question by holding that a permit or regulation","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"authorizing emissions plays no role in assessing the application of a pollution exclusion within","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"a standard-form CGL policy. The insurer argues that the pollution exclusion does not include","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"an exception for government-authorized toxic emissions, so it is irrelevant that the","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"policyholders had a permit from the IEPA allowing them to emit the emissions at issue in the","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"underlying lawsuits. The insurer asserts that Koloms’s review of the drafting history of the","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"pollution exclusion confirms that the exclusion applies to authorized emissions, as it was","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"drafted in response to increasing environmental lawsuits and therefore increasing insurer","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"liability. The insurer also notes that, if we were to rule that the pollution exclusion in CGL","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"policies does not apply to permitted emissions, Illinois would be the first state to reach such a","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"holding.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"¶ 23 Conversely, the policyholders urge us to answer the certified question by holding that the","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"pollution exclusion does not relieve the insurer of its duty to defend the policyholders from","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"tort lawsuits alleging injuries arising from the emission of hazardous materials in levels","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"authorized by an IEPA permit. The policyholders argue that, once the IEPA issues a permit","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"authorizing emissions, the IEPA has deemed those emissions to no longer be pollution.","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"Therefore, according to the policyholders, there is at least an ambiguity as to whether those","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"permitted emissions are “traditional environmental pollution” pursuant to Koloms. And,","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"because ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the insured, the policyholders contend the","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"pollution exclusion cannot apply. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"¶ 24 In interpreting an insurance policy, our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"the intention of the parties, as expressed in the policy language. Hobbs v. Hartford Insurance","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11, 17 (2005). “Undefined terms [in an insurance contract] will","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"be given their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning; i.e., they will be construed with reference","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"to the average, ordinary, normal, reasonable person.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, ¶ 30. Further, when construing the","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"language of an insurance policy “we will not strain to find an ambiguity where none exists.”","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"Hobbs, 214 Ill. 2d at 17.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"¶ 25 The plain language of the pollution exclusion states that coverage is barred for litigation","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"involving “the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids,","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water.” As the","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Seventh Circuit noted, the discharge of EtO emissions into the atmosphere at issue in this case","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"fits squarely within that plain language. Griffith Foods, 134 F.4th at 491. Moreover, the","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"emissions fit squarely within the plain and ordinary meaning of “traditional environmental","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"pollution” (Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d at 494) or “pollution harms as ordinarily understood”","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"(Scottsdale, 673 F.3d at 717).","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"¶ 26 The fact that the IEPA permitted the EtO emissions does not change this analysis. The","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"pollution exclusion says nothing about permitted or authorized pollution, and courts “must not","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"inject terms and conditions different from those agreed upon by the parties.” State Farm","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Elmore, 2020 IL 125441, ¶ 23. Further, the IEPA permit","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"did not change the character or substance of the EtO emissions as pollution. Indeed, if the EtO","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"emissions were not pollution, there would have been no need for the policyholders to obtain a","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"permit from IEPA in the first place. In other words, the permit allowing the policyholders to","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"emit EtO did not, in some manner, render those emissions no longer pollution in the plain and","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"ordinarily understood meaning of the word.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"¶ 27 In addition, as explained by this court in Koloms, the pollution exclusion in CGL policies","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"was drafted in response to the insurance industry’s concerns about increasing, costly","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"environmental litigation. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d at 492. Declining to apply the pollution exclusion","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"simply because the pollution was permitted by the State would undermine the pollution","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"exclusion’s very purpose.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"¶ 28 The pollution exclusion, standard in CGL policies, specifically precludes coverage for","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"litigation costs arising from pollution harms as ordinarily understood, but that does not mean","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"that coverage is categorically unavailable for claims arising from the discharge of pollutants.","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"We note that insurance companies have developed entirely separate pollution liability policies","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"for purchase, which allow the insurers to assess the risk of costly environmental litigation.","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"Without speculating on the availability of such policies to any particular insureds, we","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"emphasize that these separate policies generally provide the policyholders with coverage for","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"environmental lawsuits.","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"¶ 29 In sum, in determining whether the pollution exclusion in a CGL policy applies, we hold","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"that it is irrelevant whether the underlying pollution is permitted or not. Rather, as the","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"Scottsdale court said: “[a]ll that counts is that the [underlying] suits are premised on a claim","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"that the [emissions] caused injuries for which the plaintiffs are seeking damages, and that claim","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"triggers the pollution exclusion.” Scottsdale, 673 F.3d at 721. To the extent that Imperial","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Marble and Bible Pork are at odds with this conclusion, those decisions are overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"¶ 30 CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"¶ 31 For the foregoing reasons, we answer the certified question as follows: a permit or","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"regulation authorizing emissions (generally or at any particular levels) has no relevance in","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"assessing the application of a pollution exclusion within a standard-form commercial general","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"liability policy.","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"¶ 32 Certified question answered.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"¶ 33 JUSTICE ROCHFORD took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.","paragraph_id":"para_316"}],"word_count":3744,"cites":["134 F.4th 483","673 F.3d 715"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"ca26c32d4636fe4b68a701cd2effb0b52491e47a95ef802fa906cf090fb2eb9f","source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/f07723d1-119f-4c40-a855-86d02698f069/file","fetched_at":"2026-10-08T11:39:53.018+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ill-131710-2026-01-23","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23","verification":{"stored_sha256":"ca26c32d4636fe4b68a701cd2effb0b52491e47a95ef802fa906cf090fb2eb9f","recomputed_sha256":"ca26c32d4636fe4b68a701cd2effb0b52491e47a95ef802fa906cf090fb2eb9f","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T00:35:41.473Z"}},"hash":"sha256:b2fd08ea74c4be91498506e97f9f6accf55063534b71e78ef6cf15afa3c96a92","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:b2fd08ea74c4be91498506e97f9f6accf55063534b71e78ef6cf15afa3c96a92","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T01:35:42.071Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ill-131710-2026-01-23"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ill-131710-2026-01-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-c2e79f949677360333731a5fd34438ba","response_hash":"sha256:b2fd08ea74c4be91498506e97f9f6accf55063534b71e78ef6cf15afa3c96a92"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T10:26:42.542Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aill-131710-2026-01-23&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":14654}}