Studies have proven that prime ranges of PFAS can result in elevated danger of most cancers, adjustments in liver enzymes, and decreased vaccine response, amongst different well being results. Anyone uncovered to PFAS could have trigger to pursue litigation, particularly if they will show that publicity induced bodily damage.
Most PFAS claims will seemingly contain common legal responsibility insurance policies, which give insurance coverage protection for claims due to bodily damage and/or property injury to 3rd events. However, most present industrial common legal responsibility (CGL) insurance coverage insurance policies don’t present protection for PFAS claims due to air pollution or PFAS-specific exclusions.
Instead, companies can look to their historic CGL insurance policies (if they’ve entry to them) – that means these issued earlier than the broad kind air pollution exclusion was launched within the mid-Nineteen Eighties – to see if they’ve protection. Most historic CGL insurance policies cowl bodily damage or property injury brought on by an ‘occurrence’ – on this case, PFAS publicity – that means they’ll cowl any incidents that occur in the course of the coverage interval, no matter when a declare is reported.
Read subsequent: The litigation panorama round PFAS is heating up
The burden of proof is difficult the additional again these claims go, however Alex Roje, companion in Lathrop GPM’s Insurance Recovery observe, believes there’s sufficient data out there for plaintiffs to convey circumstances, and for companies (and their insurers) to defend allegations. She stated there’s going to be a paper path as to how and the place PFAS chemical compounds had been used, and whether or not they contaminated water sources, such that it’s “probably not a surmountable challenge for plaintiffs” to show publicity.
“What about the burden of proof with the insurance company? Let’s say a claimant finds one of these old CGL policies [and they want to use it in defense of a claim alleging historical PFAS exposure]. Is the insurance company going to take the position that the claim can’t be proven? I think the answer to that is ‘no’ because these old CGL policies typically have a separate duty to defend the policyholder,” defined Roje.
“These policies require the insurance company to take up the defense of the policyholder in any claims where there is a potential for property damage or bodily injury. It’s the potential for coverage that really triggers the defense obligation. Even if it turns out the claimant has a full defense and they’re able to prove they have no liability, the insurance company still has to defend them through that process. And as anyone who has dealt with long-tail environmental claims will attest to, they are often extremely expensive to defend, so having a strong defense is key.”
Read extra: Tackling the rising tide of environmental insurance coverage dangers
One mitigating issue within the litigation danger is the ever-present nature of PFAS chemical compounds. While it could be attainable for plaintiffs to show they had been uncovered to PFAS 60-years-ago, it’s not really easy to show the connection between that publicity and subsequent bodily damage or property injury.
“From the plaintiff standpoint, even if they could prove their disease was a result of exposure to PFAS, they’d then have to prove a link between that exposure and the particular defendant, which is hard considering the fact that PFAS is everywhere,” stated Roje.
However, the plaintiffs’ bar has a knack for creativity. As the litigation panorama round PFAS has advanced, Roje has seen increasingly more “creative arguments” from the plaintiffs’ bar across the science referring to the exposures. “They [the plaintiff attorneys] will always find a way,” she warned.