6th Circuit Declines To Resolve PFAS Coverage Dispute

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal,Ohio
• Author: Clayton Smith
• Law Firm: Taft Stettinius & Hollister
• Published date: 24 July 2023

In June 2023, the U.S. Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit declined to resolve a unique PFAS state-law issue in Admiral Insurance Co. v. Fire-Dex LLC when it rejected an insurer's attempt to avoid coverage for per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) lawsuits and found that the U.S. District Court properly declined to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Background

In Admiral, the insurer (Admiral) brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio seeking declaratory judgment determining that Admiral was not required to defend its insured, Fire-Dex, in a string of actions alleging injuries and damages, primarily cancer, caused by exposure to PFAS-containing products.

Fire-Dex manufactures clothing worn by firefighters. It is also responsible for the manufacturing and production of aqueous firefighting foam (AFFF). In the string of actions, plaintiffs consisted of firefighters and spouses who claimed exposure to PFAS through the use of Fire-Dex products resulted in damages, including cancer.

In arguing that its coverage did not apply to the claims against Fire-Dex, Admiral highlighted and relied on a number of exclusions in its insurance policies: (1) Exclusions for occupational disease - no coverage for bodily injury "resulting from...