Delaware's highest court has refused Travelers' appeal, keeping the insurer obligated to defend Syngenta in over 10,000 paraquat injury lawsuits.
In an order decided on April 20, 2026, the state's highest court refused Travelers Casualty and Surety Company's bid to appeal a lower court ruling that found the insurer has a duty to defend Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC against a wave of personal injury claims. The plaintiffs in those underlying cases allege they suffered bodily harm from exposure to paraquat, a herbicide product associated with Syngenta.
The coverage dispute turns on two sets of insurance policies Travelers issued to Syngenta between 1974 and 1980. The earlier policies, in effect from 1974 to 1977, contain a pollution exclusion clause – language limiting the insurer's liability for bodily injuries caused by pollution. The later policies, covering 1977 to 1980, do not include that exclusion but contain provisions that Travelers argued would allow defense costs to eat into the overall policy limits.
That pollution exclusion became the central flashpoint. Travelers argued the clause relieved it of any obligation to defend or indemnify Syngenta for the paraquat claims. The Superior Court disagreed, ruling in January 2026 that the exclusion was properly construed to apply only to traditional environmental pollution and did not bar coverage for the paraquat actions. The court did, however, hand Travelers a partial win, agreeing that defense cost reimbursements under the later policies would reduce the total funds available under those policies.
Travelers then sought to take the pollution exclusion question – along with two related rulings on the use of extrinsic evidence and the need for further discovery – up on interlocutory appeal. The Superior Court declined to certify any of the three issues, and Travelers turned to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in an order signed by Justice N. Christopher Griffiths and joined by Chief Justice Seitz and Justice LeGrow, agreed with the lower court's decision to deny certification. The justices found that the case did not present the kind of exceptional circumstances required for mid-litigation appellate review and that the potential benefits of hearing the appeal at this stage did not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs it would cause.
For insurance professionals watching the paraquat litigation landscape, the practical effect is straightforward: the Superior Court's ruling stands for now, and Travelers remains obligated to defend Syngenta. The pollution exclusion – at least as interpreted by the Delaware Superior Court – does not extend to the paraquat claims.
The case is far from over. The Supreme Court's order is final only as to the interlocutory appeal itself. The underlying litigation will continue in the Superior Court, where the parties still need to resolve coverage questions under the later policies. Travelers will have the opportunity to raise its arguments again on appeal once the trial court reaches a final judgment.
