Liberty Mutual is drawing a line in the sand over silica exposure claims, asking a federal court to rule it owes no coverage for more than 100 lawsuits facing LX Hausys America.
On August 5, 2025, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation filed a complaint in the Central District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment that they are not required to defend or indemnify LX Hausys America, Inc. - formerly known as LG Hausys America, Inc. - in a mounting wave of litigation. The underlying lawsuits, mostly in California, allege that workers developed silicosis and other injuries after inhaling or ingesting silica dust from Hausys’s granite, natural stone, and artificial stone products.
The complaint, which runs more than a dozen pages, lays out Liberty Mutual’s position in detail. According to the insurers, Hausys has been named as a defendant in over 100 lawsuits, each brought by individuals claiming bodily harm from exposure to silica and other contaminants during the fabrication of the company’s stone products. Hausys, for its part, has turned to Liberty Mutual for coverage under a series of primary and umbrella liability policies issued between August 1, 2009, and August 1, 2017.
Liberty Mutual’s stance is blunt: the policies in question contain unambiguous exclusions for both silica and pollution-related claims. The complaint quotes the silica exclusion as stating that coverage does not apply to any liability, damages, loss, injury, demand, claim, or suit “any part of which is caused by, or allegedly caused by, silica, either alone or in combination with other substances or factors, whether included in a product or otherwise.” The pollution exclusion, present in all but one of the policies, bars coverage for bodily injury “which would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants’ at any time.” “Pollutants,” the policies say, include “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.”
Liberty Mutual argues that the underlying lawsuits all allege injuries resulting from exposure to silica, and that these claims fall squarely within the exclusions. The complaint references a recent decision from March 27, 2025, in Hanover Amer. Ins. Co. et al. v. Francini, Inc., where a federal court upheld similar exclusions and found that the insurer had no duty to defend.
The back-and-forth between the parties is also spelled out. Liberty Mutual says it first denied coverage in a letter dated November 8, 2024, and followed up with a supplemental denial on March 18, 2025. Hausys, through its outside counsel Eric Little, continued to dispute Liberty’s position and demanded that the insurer fund the settlement of one of the silica lawsuits. Liberty’s counsel responded on March 21, 2025, standing by its denial and asking for any additional information Hausys believed was relevant. Another letter from Mr. Little, dated June 19, 2025, continued to challenge Liberty’s stance.
The policies at issue include both commercial general liability and umbrella excess liability coverage. The complaint quotes at length from the insuring agreements and the exclusions, underscoring Liberty’s view that the language is clear and comprehensive. The insurer is asking the court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Hausys in any of the silica lawsuits, including a specific case, Cesar Manuel Gonzales Quiroz v. American Marble & Onyx Co., Inc., which is described as typical of the broader litigation.
It’s important to note that these are Liberty Mutual’s claims, not established facts. The court will ultimately decide whether the exclusions apply as the insurer asserts and whether Hausys is entitled to any coverage. For now, the case is one to watch for insurance professionals, as the outcome could shape how similar exclusions are interpreted in future mass tort coverage disputes.
