The Illinois Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Thursday clarifying a key aspect of insurance coverage law in pollution-related cases, ruling that government permits or regulations authorizing emissions play no role in determining whether pollution exclusions apply to commercial general liability policies.
The court's January 23, 2026 opinion in *Griffith Foods International Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA* addresses a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the interpretation of pollution exclusions in standard commercial insurance policies.
Justice Cunningham delivered the court's opinion, with Chief Justice Neville and Justices Theis, Overstreet, Holder White, and O'Brien concurring. Justice Rochford took no part in the decision.
The certified question asked the Illinois Supreme Court to clarify "what 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?" The question was posed in light of two previous Illinois Supreme Court decisions: *American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms* (1997) and *Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp.* (2011).
The court answered definitively that such permits or regulations have "no relevance" in assessing pollution exclusions in commercial liability policies.
Certified questions arise when federal appeals courts encounter unsettled questions of state law that could affect the outcome of cases in federal court. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 20, federal appellate courts may ask the Illinois Supreme Court to clarify points of state law rather than attempting to predict how the state's highest court would rule.
The *Griffith Foods* case represents the latest development in the ongoing evolution of insurance coverage law regarding pollution-related claims. Pollution exclusions in commercial general liability policies have been the subject of extensive litigation as courts have grappled with defining the scope of coverage for environmental contamination and emissions.
The *Koloms* decision, cited in the certified question, established important precedent regarding how Illinois courts interpret pollution exclusions. That 1997 ruling helped define when pollution exclusions apply to various types of environmental contamination claims.
The 2011 *Erie Insurance Exchange* decision further refined the state's approach to pollution exclusion interpretation, providing additional guidance for courts and insurers in evaluating coverage disputes.
The Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in *Griffith Foods* provides clarity for both insurers and policyholders in future pollution-related coverage disputes. By establishing that government permits or regulations authorizing emissions are irrelevant to pollution exclusion analysis, the court eliminates a potential defense that might have been raised by insurers seeking to deny coverage.
The decision suggests that the presence of valid government permits allowing certain emissions cannot serve as a basis for insurers to argue that pollution exclusions should not apply. Conversely, it also indicates that the absence of such permits cannot be used to automatically trigger pollution exclusions.
This ruling will likely have implications beyond Illinois, as other state courts often look to Illinois precedent when interpreting similar insurance policy language. Commercial general liability policies frequently contain standardized pollution exclusions across multiple jurisdictions.
For businesses facing potential environmental liability, the decision provides important guidance about the factors courts will consider when determining insurance coverage. Companies cannot rely on the existence of government permits to ensure their environmental liabilities will be covered under general liability policies.
Insurance companies, meanwhile, gain clarity about the arguments they can and cannot make when seeking to apply pollution exclusions. The ruling eliminates regulatory compliance status as a factor in coverage determinations.
The unanimous nature of the decision strengthens its precedential value and suggests the court viewed the legal question as relatively straightforward despite its complexity in practice.
Environmental lawyers and insurance coverage specialists will likely study the full opinion, when available, for additional guidance on how Illinois courts should approach pollution exclusion disputes. The decision provides a foundation for future coverage litigation involving environmental contamination claims.
The case originated from litigation in federal court, where the underlying dispute between Griffith Foods International and National Union Fire Insurance Company required resolution of the state law question before the federal case could proceed.
By providing this clarification, the Illinois Supreme Court enables the Seventh Circuit to resolve the federal case with greater certainty about how Illinois law applies to the specific facts of the dispute.
The ruling demonstrates the important role state supreme courts play in clarifying legal principles that affect both state and federal litigation, particularly in areas where state law governs insurance contract interpretation.