Blogs

The Empire State’s PFAS Front: Legal Trends With National Impact

While New Jersey has established itself as the bellwether for PFAS regulation and litigation, New York is rapidly asserting its own role as a national leader. For carriers, reinsurers, and defense counsel, the Empire State is not just another battleground, it is a jurisdiction where PFAS standards, lawsuits, and judicial rulings are poised to influence outcomes far beyond state lines.

From some of the strictest drinking water regulations in the country to headline-grabbing lawsuits filed by the Attorney General, New York is creating a PFAS landscape that demands close attention. For carriers underwriting risks in the tri-state region, developments in New York are especially important. Claims trends in New Jersey and New York often converge, and the lessons learned in one state quickly inform strategies in the other.

New York’s Aggressive Regulatory Framework

New York has adopted some of the most stringent PFAS standards in the nation. In 2020, the state set enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of 10 parts per trillion for both perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in public drinking water systems. These limits are significantly lower than the federal advisory levels that were in place at the time. This forced water systems and municipalities to invest heavily in treatment and monitoring infrastructure.

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Department of Health (DOH) have also listed PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, enabling broader enforcement under the state’s environmental conservation laws. This designation grants regulators enhanced authority to pursue cleanups, compel responsible parties to take action, and recover costs through litigation.

For carriers, these standards are not just regulatory footnotes, they expand the scope of liability for insureds across industries, from manufacturers to municipal utilities. The costs of compliance, remediation, and potential penalties flow directly into the claims environment.

High-Profile Litigation in the Empire State

New York’s Attorney General (AG) has made PFAS a priority, launching a series of lawsuits against major manufacturers. These actions seek damages for statewide contamination, the costs of remediation, and compensation for natural resource damages.

• New York’s Attorney General has pursued claims against 3M, DuPont, and Chemours, among others, alleging decades of concealment about PFAS risks.
• Dozens of local governments and utilities have filed suits to recover the expense of installing and operating PFAS treatment systems. These claims are often bundled into larger multi-district litigation, but New York courts are also handling their share of standalone actions.
• Communities near contamination sites, from Hoosick Falls to Long Island, have brought toxic tort cases alleging personal injuries and property damage. These cases highlight the human toll of PFAS exposure and provide plaintiffs’ counsel with compelling narratives for juries to consider.

The sheer breadth of litigation in New York underscores the risk for carriers. Insureds facing suits are drawing heavily on their liability coverage, while insurers are responding with reservation of rights letters, declaratory judgment actions, and aggressive reliance on pollution exclusions.

Why New York Matters Beyond Its Borders

As with New Jersey, New York’s importance lies not just in its local contamination issues but in its outsized influence.

• With over 19 million residents, many of whom rely on municipal water systems, New York is fertile ground for PFAS claims.
• Other states often look to New York’s environmental standards when designing their own policies. Federal regulators similarly monitor New York’s enforcement outcomes.
• New York courts are highly influential in shaping coverage law, tort law, and liability standards. Decisions here can ripple nationally, affecting how PFAS cases are argued and resolved elsewhere.
• Carriers view New York claims data as a critical input for estimating PFAS exposure nationwide. If payouts increase in New York, underwriting assumptions nationwide will shift.

Coverage Battles on the Horizon

For carriers, New York’s PFAS litigation presents both familiar and novel challenges. The same coverage defenses seen in New Jersey, pollution exclusions, trigger disputes, and allocation battles are now being tested in New York courts. However, New York also brings its own nuances:

• With insureds operating nationally, disputes often center on whether New York law or another jurisdiction’s law applies. New York’s historically pragmatic approach to coverage disputes could have significant consequences for PFAS cases.
• New York has a robust body of law around timely notice of claims and occurrences. Carriers are likely to raise these defenses in PFAS suits, particularly where contamination stretches back decades.
• Courts in New York have historically construed the duty to defend broadly, which may expand insurers’ obligations in PFAS litigation even where indemnity is contested.

The bottom line is that New York courts are poised to play a critical role in shaping how PFAS coverage disputes unfold nationwide.

Practical Implications for Carriers and Counsel

The lessons for carriers are clear:

1. Expect mounting defense costs. Even before indemnity, PFAS claims in New York will be expensive to defend. Plaintiffs’ counsel are well-resourced, and regulators are aggressive.
2. Prepare for layered liability. Insureds face exposure from state suits, municipal claims, and private tort actions simultaneously. That multiplies defense complexity and financial exposure.
3. Reassess policy language. Pollution exclusions and “sudden and accidental” provisions are being tested. Carriers should evaluate how New York courts are applying these doctrines and adjust underwriting strategies accordingly.
4. Monitor settlements closely. Large settlements, whether with the state AG or municipal plaintiffs, create benchmarks that will drive expectations in future cases.

Conclusion

New York is quickly establishing itself as a central theater in the national PFAS litigation crisis. Its strict regulations, sweeping lawsuits, and influential courts mean that developments here will not stay within state borders.

For carriers and defense counsel, the message is unmistakable: watch New York closely. The claims filed today, the rulings issued tomorrow, and the settlements announced next year will all play an outsized role in determining how PFAS liability is allocated nationwide.

PFAS litigation is not just unfolding in courtrooms and regulatory agencies; it is reshaping the insurance and underwriting landscape in real time. In New York, the stakes are high, the players are powerful, and the ripple effects are certain.