CSX is taking a lineup of major insurers to federal court over who should pick up the tab for worker injury suits on a Chicago rail project.
In a filing made November 26, 2025, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) lays out a multi-party coverage and indemnity dispute tied to construction of the Forest Hill Flyover at its Forest Hill Yard on West 79th Street in Chicago. The case is at an initial stage, and the filing does not reflect any court rulings on the allegations.
CSXT says it was the owner of the project and brought in Granite Construction Inc. and TranSystems Corporation under separate contracts to perform work at the site. Granite’s contract, signed May 24, 2022, and the earlier TranSystems agreement, dated November 3, 2020, are at the heart of the dispute.
According to CSXT’s filing, the Granite contract required the contractor, at its own cost, to maintain commercial general liability insurance that covered its “direct and assumed liability” under the contract and listed CSXT’s railroad as an additional named insured. Granite also allegedly agreed to “indemnify, defend, and hold harmless” the railroad and its affiliates from a broad range of liabilities arising from its presence on railroad property or performance of the work, “whether or not attributable in whole or part to the negligence of RAILROAD.”
The TranSystems agreement is described in similar terms. CSXT says that contract required TranSystems to purchase and maintain commercial general liability coverage with contractual liability, along with workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, business automobile liability, and, where applicable, professional liability insurance. TranSystems also allegedly promised to indemnify and hold CSXT harmless for incidents caused or contributed to by its acts or omissions or those of its agents and subcontractors, except where CSXT’s own negligence or intentional misconduct was the sole proximate cause. Both contracts include Florida choice-of-law clauses.
Those risk-transfer provisions are now being tested by two lawsuits brought by Granite employees. CSXT’s filing states that on November 13, 2024, worker Christopher Valente sued CSXT and TranSystems, alleging he was injured on May 23, 2024, when a crane lost control of a load that struck him while he was working on the project. A second suit, filed January 16, 2025, by worker Henry Ipema, alleges he fell off a platform on December 20, 2023, due to allegedly inadequate and unsafe tie-off for fall protection while working at the same project. CSXT has filed answers denying liability in both cases.
CSXT now claims it is an additional insured under commercial general liability and umbrella or excess policies purchased by Granite, TranSystems, Gannett Fleming, Inc., and related entities. The insurers named in the case are Zurich National Insurance Company, Transportation Insurance Co., Continental Casualty Company, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, PA Manufacturers Indemnity Co., Old Republic Union Insurance Co., and Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company of America.
The filing alleges that the insurers’ policies provide defense and indemnity for the Valente and Ipema lawsuits, but that repeated tenders in March, May and October 2025 drew no response. CSXT asks the court to declare that each insurer must defend and indemnify it against the injury claims and reimburse all related damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. It also seeks statutory penalties, fees and costs under Illinois Insurance Code section 155, claiming the insurers’ lack of response amounts to “unreasonable and vexatious” conduct.
In addition, CSXT asserts contractual indemnity claims against TranSystems, Granite and The Roderick Group Inc. d/b/a Ardmore Roderick. It alleges that TranSystems and Granite must defend, indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse CSXT for amounts it may be required to pay, and for defense costs, in both the Valente and Ipema suits, while Roderick has similar obligations in connection with the Ipema case.
For insurance professionals, the filing zeroes in on additional insured status, construction-site risk transfer and carrier response to tenders across primary and umbrella layers. The next steps in the dispute will become clearer once the insurers and contractors respond in court.
