Forever chemicals (PFAS) are reshaping environmental risk, regulation, and insurance. New federal standards, Superfund liability, and high-profile settlements have pushed carriers to add PFAS exclusions across many liability lines. Environmental consulting firms now face tighter terms, coverage gaps, and rising due-diligence demands.
What are PFAS and why do they matter?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals valued for resistance to heat, water, and oil. They appear in non-stick cookware, stain-repellent textiles, certain firefighting foams (AFFF), and many industrial processes. PFAS persist in the environment and can accumulate in people and wildlife. Health agencies and the EPA link exposure to adverse effects, which has spurred strict drinking-water limits, Superfund designations, and escalating litigation.
- Common uses: non-stick coatings, water-repellent fabrics, some food packaging, legacy AFFF.
- Main concerns: persistence, bioaccumulation, and growing evidence of health risks at very low levels.
What changed in 2024–2025?
- Drinking-water standards. In April 2024, EPA finalized enforceable MCLs: 4 ppt for PFOA/PFOS; 10 ppt for PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (GenX); plus a hazard index of 1 for mixtures of PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA. In May 2025, EPA announced it would propose extending the PFOA/PFOS compliance deadline to 2031 and reconsider standards for the other PFAS. Until any new rule is finalized, the 2024 regulation remains in force.
- Superfund liability. In 2024, EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA (Superfund) hazardous substances, expanding reporting and cleanup liability and strengthening cost-recovery pathways.
- TSCA reporting shift. EPA extended the PFAS reporting window under TSCA §8(a)(7): submissions now due April–October 2026 (with some small-entity reports due April 2027).
- AFFF transition. DoD and the FAA continue the transition from AFFF to fluorine-free foam (F3), with FAA CertAlerts and transition guidance influencing airport and contractor practices.
- Major settlements. Final court approval of multibillion-dollar public water system settlements (3M, DuPont/Chemours/Corteva) and new state settlements underscore severity and long-tail exposure.
How are insurers responding?
PFAS-specific exclusions—introduced by ISO in mid-2023—are now common on Commercial General Liability (CGL), umbrella/excess, BOP, and some proprietary forms. Carriers are also tightening environmental lines with sublimits, known-condition restrictions, and class-specific carve-outs (e.g., AFFF handling, landfill leachate, wastewater, textiles).
- ISO endorsements in use: examples include CG 40 32 (GL), CU 34 54 (umbrella), CX 21 97 (excess), and BP 15 91 (BOP). Wordings vary by carrier; verify the exact forms on your policy.
- Coverage disputes continue. Courts have reached different outcomes depending on wording and venue. In some cases (e.g., Buckeye Fire Equipment), courts required a defense despite broad “hazardous materials” or pollution exclusions—especially where claims allege direct contact rather than classic environmental release.
Where are PFAS insurance pressures highest?
- California. PFAS restrictions in textiles/apparel took effect Jan 1, 2025, raising product-liability and compliance exposure for brands and supply chains.
- New York. A statewide ban on apparel with intentionally added PFAS took effect Jan 1, 2025; rulemaking and enforcement continue.
- Michigan. The MPART program maintains detailed mapping and investigations, sustaining a high cadence of PFAS site activity and claims.
- North Carolina. Ongoing Chemours/GenX consent-order obligations and monitoring keep PFAS front-and-center for manufacturers and consultants.
- Texas. TCEQ guidance reflects federal shifts; rapid industrial growth intersects with evolving PFAS standards and municipal compliance timelines.
What does this mean for environmental consulting firms?
- Expect exclusions on “non-environmental” lines. Many CGL, umbrella/excess, and BOP policies now expressly exclude PFAS—removing defense/indemnity for BI/PD or cleanup tied to PFAS.
- Scrutinize environmental lines. CPL (contractors), PLL/site, and Environmental Professional Liability can address PFAS, but underwriters increasingly use sublimits, scheduled sites, and restrictive endorsements. Provide robust PFAS protocols (sampling, lab methods, waste handling) in submissions to negotiate terms.
- Leverage historic insurance. Occurrence-based CGL policies issued before modern (post-1986) pollution exclusions may respond to legacy releases. Consider policy archaeology and coverage counsel.
- Tighten contracts and QA/QC. Add PFAS-specific scope language (analyte lists, detection limits, chain-of-custody, data validation) and appropriate limitations of liability and indemnity provisions.
- Prepare for data pulls. If you manufacture/import PFAS (including in articles), plan for TSCA reporting in 2026–2027 and document supply-chain transparency.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Are PFAS always excluded now?
A: Not always. Many CGL/umbrella programs now exclude PFAS, but environmental policies can sometimes schedule or sublimit PFAS. Terms are highly case-specific; shop the environmental market and document controls.
Q: If EPA revises deadlines or rescinds some PFAS rules, does my liability go away?
A: No. CERCLA designation of PFOA/PFOS, state product bans, and tort claims continue. Water systems and private plaintiffs still pursue cleanup costs and damages.
Q: Do pre-1986 occurrence policies really help?
A: Sometimes. Older CGL layers may lack modern pollution exclusions and have been used to defend/indemnify legacy contamination claims, subject to facts and state law.
Q: What’s the biggest risk for consultants specifically?
A: Allegations that sampling, design, or oversight missed PFAS, failed to warn, or increased migration—plus contractual indemnity back to you. Align scopes, document assumptions, and keep a strong QA/QC and chain-of-custody trail.
Why this matters to the insurance industry
- Severity & aggregation. Water-system settlements now exceed $11B, and industry analyses argue total litigation exposure could be far higher—driving exclusions and reinsurance caution.
- Coverage clarity vs. gaps. ISO PFAS endorsements reduce ambiguity but shift risk back to insureds unless environmental lines are purchased.
- Claims mix is broadening. Beyond contamination, expect consumer-protection/labeling suits, workplace exposure, and product claims that touch multiple lines.
Action checklist for consulting firms
- Audit all lines (CGL, umbrella, professional, CPL, PLL) for PFAS terms; flag any PFAS endorsements by code and title.
- Submit PFAS protocols with applications (methods, labs, waste handling). Underwriters reward documented controls.
- Update contracts: PFAS-specific scopes, limits of liability, and indemnity language suited to your role.
- Track federal MCL rulemaking and state product bans that might change client obligations—and your advisory risk.
- Consider policy archaeology for legacy exposures (pre-1986 occurrence forms).
Sources and Further Reading
- EPA – Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (Apr 26, 2024)
- EPA – May 14, 2025 announcement on maintaining PFOA/PFOS MCLs and proposing deadline extension to 2031
- Washington Post – EPA will extend compliance to 2031 and reconsider other PFAS standards (May 13, 2025)
- Reuters – EPA to revise PFAS rule; extend timelines to 2031 (May 14, 2025)
- EPA – CERCLA hazardous-substance designation for PFOA/PFOS (May 8, 2024)
- EPA – TSCA PFAS reporting window extended to Apr–Oct 2026 (May 12, 2025) and program page
- FAA – CertAlert 24-11: Required testing after F3 transition (Dec 31, 2024) and F3 transition page
- GAO – DoD transition from AFFF to F3: challenges and status (2024–2025)
- ATSDR/CDC – PFAS health effects (updated Jul 22, 2025)
- EPA – PFAS rule summary and health basis
- 3M – Final approval of $10.3B PWS settlement (Apr 1, 2024)
- DuPont/Chemours/Corteva – $1.185B water-system settlement (Jun 2, 2023) and coverage approval (e.g., ASDWA, Feb 16, 2024)
- Reuters – NJ state settlement with Chemours/DuPont/Corteva ($875M) (Aug 4, 2025)
- ISO specimen (via carrier) – CG 40 32 05 23 – Exclusion – PFAS (GL)
- Baker-Hopp – PFAS exclusion forms overview (CG 40 32, CU 34 54, CX 21 97, BP 15 91)
- Case law (duty to defend) – Colony v. Buckeye Fire Equipment (W.D.N.C. 2020) and 4th Cir. affirmance (2021)
- TransRe – PFAS: The Case for Re/insurance Exclusions (Jun 2025) and long-form PDF
- WTW – Insurance Marketplace Realities 2025 – Environmental (May 2, 2025) and PFAS trends in Life Sciences (Oct 2024)
- State actions – NY DEC PFAS in apparel (effective Jan 1, 2025); CA DTSC fact sheet referencing AB 1817 (effective Jan 1, 2025)
- Michigan – MPART PFAS GIS
- North Carolina – Chemours Consent Order materials (NC DEQ)
- Texas – TCEQ PFAS drinking-water page (updated 2025)
Rick van Oppen
