Four CNA insurers have asked a court to declare they owe no duty to defend or indemnify a policyholder in a PFAS suit.
On July 24, 2026, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Valley Forge Insurance Company, Continental Casualty Company and The Continental Insurance Company - together the "CNA Insurers" - filed a declaratory-judgment complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. According to the filing, they are asking the court to rule that they owe no duty to defend or indemnify Standard Textile Carolina, Inc. in a separate South Carolina lawsuit.
That separate lawsuit sets the stage. According to the complaint, the water agency Santee Cooper has sued Standard Textile Carolina and other entities it labels "Discharger Defendants" over PFAS, sometimes called "forever chemicals." The complaint states that Santee Cooper alleges the company's facility discharges PFAS-containing wastewater to a public treatment plant that cannot remove the chemicals, and that the water then reaches Lake Marion and Lake Moultrie, where the agency draws water for treatment and distribution. The complaint says those claims are part of a multidistrict proceeding, In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873.
For coverage and claims professionals, the filing turns on policy language. The insurers say the primary commercial general liability policies contain an "absolute pollution exclusion" that they contend bars coverage for this kind of claim. The complaint states that PFAS are "pollutants" as the policies define the term, and that the discharge is "at or from" a site the insured owns.
The complaint also addresses a narrower grant of coverage. The primary policies include a "Limited Pollution Coverage Endorsement" that, subject to its terms, can respond to "property damage" resulting from a "limited pollution incident." The insurers argue the endorsement's conditions are not met. According to the filing, a covered incident must be "accidental," yet the complaint points to the underlying allegation that the discharges were "intentional"; it must happen "entirely above-ground"; it must be "demonstrable as commencing and ending within seven days"; and the first release must be shown to have occurred during a policy period. The complaint contends a prolonged discharge routed through a public treatment plant does not satisfy those conditions.
The insurers also cite additional endorsement exclusions, according to the filing: a Natural Resources exclusion, a Failure of Pollution Control Equipment exclusion tied to the treatment plant's alleged inability to remove PFAS, a Failure to Comply With Environmental Statutes exclusion keyed to the underlying allegation of "willful" conduct, and a Punitive Damages exclusion. The complaint further states that The Continental Insurance Company's excess and umbrella policies contain their own pollution exclusions and follow-form terms that, the insurer contends, provide no coverage.
The complaint also describes the carriers' current defense position. According to the filing, in a January 14, 2026 letter the primary insurers agreed to defend Standard Textile Carolina under the Limited Pollution Coverage "subject to a full and complete reservation of rights," including the right to seek declaratory relief and to "terminate the defense." The complaint states the insurers are providing that defense while this coverage action proceeds.
The complaint invokes diversity jurisdiction and states that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The insurers' claims and legal positions are allegations that have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on whether coverage applies. The PFAS-contamination claims described here are allegations that Santee Cooper has made against Standard Textile Carolina in the separate underlying lawsuit; they also remain unproven.
