During this FREE Hot Topic, Adam will discuss the growing concern over PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals,” and if it is significantly impacting the insurance landscape, particularly for environmental consulting firms and LSRPs. The challenges of PFAS exclusions in insurance policies and how specialists in environmental insurance are addressing these issues.
Speaker: Adam Puharic is Owner of Puharic and Associates, Inc., a professional risk management and insurance firm in Manasquan, NJ. They offer business lines including Professional, General, Excess, Cyber and Employee Practices, as well as Commercial Auto, Group and Individual Health, and much more.
What Every LSRP and Environmental Consultant Should Know About PFAS Insurance Exclusions
Key take-aways from CPES Hot Topic with Adam Puharic, Puharic & Associates
Why this matters now
Beginning in 2023, many commercial insurers quietly introduced new endorsements that exclude coverage for “PFAS/PFOA/PFOS-related” bodily-injury and property-damage claims on General Liability (CGL) and Contractors Pollution Liability (CPL) forms.
Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs), engineers, geologists and other environmental consultants frequently carry “triple-barrel” policies that combine:
| Coverage line | What it normally pays for | Where PFAS exclusions are showing up |
|---|---|---|
| Professional Liability (E&O) | Errors & omissions in technical judgment, sampling plans, reports | Usually still covers PFAS – most carriers have not added PFAS exclusions here…yet |
| Commercial General Liability (CGL) | Third-party bodily injury/property damage from your operations | New ISO PFAS exclusion available; many carriers adopting |
| Contractors Pollution Liability (CPL) | Accidental release of pollutants during field activities | Some monoline CPL markets already adding PFAS-out endorsements |
The result: you could be on the hook for allegations that your soil borings, pilot tests or remedial activities spread PFAS to an adjacent property—even while your professional-liability section still defends your report.
5 practical lessons from the webinar
- Read the endorsements—not just the COI.
The new wording typically removes any defense or indemnity “for loss, cost or expense arising out of PFAS, PFOA, PFOS… including monitoring, cleanup, removal or remediation.”
Ask your broker for the forms & endorsements page, not just a certificate. - Subs matter.
If you sub-contract drilling, excavation or AFFF system removal, require them (via your MSA) to carry pollution coverage without PFAS exclusions—or at least supply the form so you understand the gap. - Changing carriers isn’t a silver bullet.
A few markets (e.g., Chubb/Westchester) still write broad pollution with no PFAS carve-out, but they have narrow appetites and may reject firms with heavy remedial construction or industrial portfolios. Expect all insurers to adopt some version within 2-3 years. - Exclusion ≠ no coverage anywhere.
Most professional-liability sections continue to defend consultants for design or advisory negligence involving PFAS. The exclusion hits when the claim is framed as property damage or bodily injury caused by field operations. - Expect sub-limits or buy-backs later.
History with mold, silica and asbestos shows insurers first exclude, then re-introduce limited coverage (e.g., $50 k sub-limit) once actuarial data improves or regulators require availability.
Action checklist for LSRPs
| Task | Why | How often |
|---|---|---|
| Meet with risk manager/broker | Map your PFAS-related revenue streams and field services risk | At renewal and mid-term if scope changes |
| Inventory subs’ policies | Avoid taking on their uninsured PFAS liability | Each new subcontract; annually thereafter |
| Review client contracts | Some Port or Fortune 500 templates now require “PFAS-inclusive” coverage | Before signing |
| Update MSAs | Add language: “Pollution policy shall not contain PFAS exclusion” (or must disclose form number) | Next contract revision |
| Track regulatory definitions | PFAS list will grow; exclusions may broaden to “forever chemicals” | Ongoing |
PFAS exclusions are no longer hypothetical
If your GL/CPL section is silently amended, you could discover—after a claim—that defense costs fall back on firm assets. Start the conversation with your broker now, document decisions, and budget for a possible move to carriers still offering broader pollution coverage or for future buy-back endorsements.
The full recorded Hot-Topic session and slide deck are in the video on this page for on-demand viewing.