Major insurers are squaring off with Pyrotek, Inc. in a Pennsylvania federal court, seeking clarity on whether they have to pick up the tab for a wave of asbestos lawsuits targeting the manufacturer.
On August 4, 2025, ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, Great Northern Insurance Company, and Oakwood Insurance Company filed suit in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Their goal: a definitive answer on whether their policies require them to defend and indemnify Pyrotek, a company with a long history in industrial materials, now facing a steady stream of asbestos-related claims.
Pyrotek, which once operated under the name Fibrous Glass Products, Inc., is no stranger to litigation. The company has been named in a series of lawsuits - some from individuals who say they were harmed by asbestos in Pyrotek’s products, others from former employees who allege exposure at work. The complaint highlights two categories: “Products Lawsuits,” brought by those exposed to asbestos-containing products, and “Employee Lawsuits,” brought by workers who claim they were exposed on the job. One such case, Barnhart Jr. v. 3M Company, et al., is currently pending in Pennsylvania state court and centers on alleged exposure at Pyrotek’s Carlisle facility.
The insurers, for their part, insist their policies don’t cover these employee lawsuits. They cite specific language in their contracts. ACE’s policy, originally issued by Aetna Insurance Company, includes general liability coverage but expressly excludes “bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured.” It also carves out any obligation covered by workers’ compensation or similar laws.
Federal Insurance Company’s umbrella policy and Great Northern’s general liability policy echo these exclusions. Federal’s policy says it does not apply to “any obligation for which the Insured or any company as its insurer may be held liable under any Workmen’s Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, Disability Benefits Law, or under any similar law.” Great Northern’s policy similarly excludes employee injuries that occur in the course of employment, unless the liability was assumed under a written contract or agreement. Oakwood Insurance Company’s umbrella policy contains a general endorsement that limits coverage for employer liability, except as provided in the underlying insurance.
Beyond the question of coverage, the insurers are also asking the court to set clear boundaries on their potential liability. If the court finds any duty to defend in the employee lawsuits, the insurers want all asbestos exposure claims within a policy period to be treated as a single occurrence - effectively capping their payout at the per-occurrence limit. For product lawsuits, they argue that all claims within a policy period should be subject to the aggregate limit.
The complaint also ropes in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The plaintiffs are seeking a judicial declaration of everyone’s rights and obligations under the various insurance policies Pyrotek has amassed over the years.
It’s worth underscoring that these are the insurers’ claims, not established facts. Pyrotek and the other defendants will have their chance to respond, and the court will ultimately decide where the chips fall.
For those in the insurance industry, this case is a fresh reminder of the complexities that come with legacy asbestos claims and the fine print that governs liability coverage. The outcome could shape how insurers draft exclusions and limits in the future, especially for manufacturers with a history of asbestos use.
For now, there’s no decision - just a newly filed complaint and a host of questions about who will foot the bill. But for anyone in commercial insurance, it’s a case that demands attention.
