Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and Surety Company) v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC

── Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and Surety Company) v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND § SURETY COMPANY (f/k/a Aetna § No. 88, 2026 Casualty and Surety Company), § § Court Below–Superior Court Defendant Below, § of the State of Delaware Appellant, § § C.A. No. N21C-05-143 v. § § SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, § LLC, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: February 27, 2026 Decided: April 20, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the notice of appeal from an interlocutory order and the exhibits attached thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) Plaintiff below/appellee, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“Syngenta”), sought insurance coverage from defendant below/appellant, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (“Travelers”), to defend over 10,000 personal injury lawsuits brought by plaintiffs alleging that they had suffered bodily harm because of their exposure to paraquat, Syngenta’s herbicide product (the “Paraquat Actions”). Travelers denied coverage, prompting Syngenta to file suit in the Superior Court.  (2) Relevant to this appeal, Travelers issued two groups of insurance policies to Syngenta.1 The first group includes three policies (“Policy Nos. 1–3”) that were in effect from September 1974 to 1977 and contain a clause limiting Travelers’ liability for bodily injuries caused by pollution (the “Pollution Exclusion”). The second group of policies (“Policy Nos. 4–6” and together with Policy Nos. 1–3, the “Policies”) were in effect from September 1977 to September 1980 and do not contain the Pollution Exclusion. However, Policy Nos. 4–6 contain language that Travelers argued requires the payment of defense costs to erode the limits of liability. Syngenta moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a determination that Travelers has a duty to defend six specific Paraquat Actions that are broadly representative of the Paraquat Actions (the “Exemplar Actions”) under the Policies. Travelers cross-moved for summary judgment, seeking a determination that (i) it has no duty to defend or indemnify Syngenta for the Paraquat Actions under Policy Nos. 1–3 because of the Pollution Exclusion, and (ii) the payment of defense costs under Policy Nos. 4–6 must reduce the overall policy limits. (3) On January 30, 2026, the Superior Court granted Syngenta’s motion and granted in part and denied in part Travelers’ motion (the “Opinion”). 2 The 1 The parties have stipulated for purposes of the insurance policies at issue that Syngenta is the successor-in-interest to ICI Americas Inc. (f/k/a ICI United States Inc., f/k/a ICI America Inc., f/k/a Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc.). 2 Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co., 2026 WL 461297 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2026). 2 Superior Court held that the Pollution Exclusion did not relieve Travelers of its duty to defend under Policy Nos. 1–3. But the court agreed with Travelers that “its reimbursement of Syngenta’s defense costs reduces the total funds [available] under [Policy Nos. 4–6].”3 Travelers asked the Superior Court to certify an interlocutory appeal of three rulings included in the Opinion: (i) that the Pollution Exclusion “is properly construed to exclude only coverage from traditional environmental pollution”4 (the “Pollution Exclusion Ruling”), (ii) that the court did not need to look beyond the Policies and the underlying complaints to determine whether Travelers had a duty to defend (the “Extrinsic Evidence Ruling”), and (iii) that further discovery was