(Article from Insurance Law Alert, September 2026)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
Holding
An Ohio federal district court granted summary judgment to an insurer, holding that an occupational disease exclusion in commercial general liability policies barred coverage for PFAS-related personal injury claims brought by firefighters who were not employees of the insured. Fire-Dex, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199844 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2026).
Background
Fire-Dex, an Ohio-based manufacturer of personal protective equipment for firefighters, was named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging that firefighters developed cancer from exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in Fire-Dex turnout gear. The plaintiffs alleged that they were repeatedly exposed to PFAS while wearing the gear in the course of their firefighting duties.
Fire-Dex sought defense and indemnity under CGL policies issued by Admiral Insurance Company. Admiral denied coverage based on an occupational disease exclusion, which provided “there is no coverage . . . for any ‘bodily injury’ to any individual resulting from any occupational or environmental disease arising out of any insured’s operations, completed operations or products.” Fire-Dex sued, seeking a declaration of coverage and asserting claims for breach of contract and bad faith.
Decision
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio first denied Fire-Dex’s motion to certify a question to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding whether the occupational disease exclusion applies only to claims by an insured’s own employees or also to claims by non-employees. The court agreed that the issue was one of “first impression” under Ohio law, but concluded that existing Ohio authority provided “a reasonably clear and principled course” for resolving it.
Turning to the merits, the court held that the occupational disease exclusion unambiguously barred coverage.
Because the policies did not define “occupational disease,” the court considered Ohio case law, Ohio’s statutory definition of the term, and dictionary definitions. The court concluded that an occupational disease is one contracted during and as a result of employment, where the conditions causing the illness are not ones to which the general public is exposed. The underlying allegations satisfied that definition because the firefighters allegedly developed cancer from PFAS exposure while wearing turnout gear required as part of their employment.
The court rejected Fire-Dex’s argument that the exclusion applied only to claims by Fire-Dex’s own employees. Fire-Dex argued that “occupational disease” should be limited to diseases giving rise to workers’ compensation benefits and, on that basis, that the exclusion should apply only to claims by employees against their employers. The court disagreed. It reasoned that eligibility for workers’ compensation is a consequence of having an occupational disease, not part of the definition of occupational disease itself. And, even if workers’ compensation were relevant, eligibility for workers’ compensation does not depend on whom the worker sues—“it would be bizarre to say that an illness is an occupational disease when a plaintiff sues his employer but ceases to be an occupational disease when he sues someone else.”
The court further ruled that the policy language itself established that the occupational disease exclusion was not limited to claims by Fire-Dex’s employees. The exclusion applied to bodily injury sustained by “any individual,” which the court held plainly encompasses both employees and non-employees. The court contrasted that language with another policy provision expressly referring to “any employee,” reasoning that the difference in language required a difference in meaning. Accordingly, the exclusion applied to the underlying firefighters’ claims, and Admiral had no duty to defend or indemnify Fire-Dex.
The court also granted Admiral summary judgment on Fire-Dex’s breach of contract and bad faith claims. Because Admiral had no duty to defend or indemnify, there was no breach of contract or bad faith.
Comments
This decision is notable because PFAS coverage litigation to date has frequently centered on pollution exclusions, while this decision illustrates that occupational disease exclusions may provide an independent basis for defeating coverage for PFAS and other toxic-tort claims arising from workplace exposure.
The Fire-Dex court’s reasoning is consistent with the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 333 Conn. 343 (2019), which addressed occupational disease exclusions in the context of asbestos and other toxic-exposure claims. There, the court likewise held that the exclusions were not limited to claims by the insured’s own employees and applied to individuals who allegedly contracted an occupational disease while working for other employers. The Fire-Dex court relied on Vanderbilt in rejecting Fire-Dex’s argument that the exclusion was limited to claims by its own employees.