The first was its Employer’s Liability Exclusion, written to bar claims for bodily injury to an employee’s child caused as a consequence of injury to the employee. The problem, the court found, was that the Domion complaint never actually pinned down how the child was harmed. It left open a scenario where Pedro brought chemical products and substances home without sustaining any injury himself, and the child was exposed that way. The complaint had flagged failures in TriQuint’s ventilation, industrial hygiene policies, and personal protective equipment, which only reinforced that possibility. With that ambiguity in play, the exclusion could not cleanly apply.
Court strikes down three exclusions in insurer’s refusal to defend
