A plaintiffs lawyer’s 2016 letter informing a company of potential herbicide injury suits was not a “claim for damages” that Zurich American Insurance Co. could use to escape its coverage obligations, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The justices ruled in Zurich American Insurance Co. et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC that the letter, which was sent in the year prior to Syngenta policies with Zurich going into effect, did not constitute a claim for damages because it did not identify potential plaintiffs or demand payment for damages caused by the herbicide paraquat.

Zurich provided claims made commercial general liability and umbrella policies to Wilmington, Delaware-based Syngenta from 2017 to 2020. The commercial general liability policies each provided $5 million in coverage that was subject to a $1 million self-insured retention and the umbrella polices provided up to $19 million in coverage, court records show.  

In January 2016, Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery LLC sent a letter to Syngenta informing it that the firm had started retaining clients who allegedly developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of exposure to paraquat. Between September 2017 and April 2019, a number of lawsuits were filed against Syngenta by individuals claiming they developed the disease after being exposed to the herbicide.

Syngenta informed Zurich about the suits in November 2017, and the insurer initially agreed to defend the company against the litigation subject to a reservation of rights. Syngenta provided the insurer with a copy of the letter from Mr. Tillery in June 2018.

In February 2019, Zurich sued Syngenta, saying Mr. Tillery’s letter constituted a claim that occurred before the policies it issued. Syngenta filed a counterclaim for bad faith.

A trial court judge awarded summary judgment to Syngenta after finding that the letter was not a claim for damages that occurred prior to Zurich’s coverage. The judge also agreed with Zurich that Syngenta failed to state a claim for bad faith.

The Delaware high court affirmed.

“We are equally convinced that the Superior Court correctly concluded that the Tillery Letter and related communications did not constitute a ‘claim for damages’ under the Zurich Policies,” the court said in its ruling.

“The letter, as mentioned before, does not identify any claimants, except in the vaguest terms. And because Stephen Tillery was not prepared to disclose the identity of the clients or to proceed with litigation, he could not — and did not — demand or request monetary relief on behalf of a claimant.”

The parties and their representatives did not respond to requests for comment.