Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation say a silica exclusion reaches an entire lawsuit if silica allegedly caused any part of it. Their Texas complaint seeks a ruling on one California case, while LM Insurance Corporation has filed a separate suit against Architectural Surfaces Group in the same court.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation sued Wilsonart on October 5, saying they owe no defense in a California silicosis suit. Their complaint for declaratory judgment, filed in federal court in Austin, Texas, leans first on a silica exclusion in four primary policies and quotes its operative phrase: “any part of which is caused by, or allegedly caused by, silica in any form”. The complaint, which calls the two plaintiffs “Liberty,” says Wilsonart has been sued in more than 130 silica lawsuits, but asks the court to rule on just one. Whether Liberty owes that defense, and any indemnity, is now before the court.
The case Liberty chose is a silicosis suit against Wilsonart pending in Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 23STCV29755. Liberty’s complaint says Wilsonart tendered that action under four primary policies issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and four umbrella policies issued by Liberty Insurance Corporation. Together, the policies run from October 31, 2021, through October 31, 2025.
The 5 sources behind this story: 4 court records and 1 other source, each linked with what it shows. Free with the weekly Litigation Sentinel brief.
Liberty’s complaint describes the underlying pleading as alleging that the plaintiff was injured while fabricating the defendants’ stone products that released respirable crystalline silica. It quotes that pleading as alleging exposure to silica, metals and other toxins, and says the pleading attributes all of the plaintiff’s injuries at least in part to silica. Those are allegations in the California case, as presented by Liberty. The Texas court has made no coverage ruling.
That distinction between *part* and *whole* is central to Liberty’s silica argument. The primary policy language quoted in the complaint excludes a “suit” if *any part* is caused, or allegedly caused, by silica, whether silica acted alone or alongside other substances. Liberty argues that because the underlying pleading alleges a silica contribution, the exclusion reaches the entire suit. It seeks a declaration that it owes neither a defense nor indemnity for that action.
Liberty says it denied coverage by letter dated October 29, 2025. Nearly a year later, it brought the question to federal court in Austin. The case number, 1:26-cv-02818, carries the initials DAE, and CourtListener’s docket metadata lists David A. Ezra as the assigned judge.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
The silica wording leads the complaint, but it is not Liberty’s only argument. Liberty says pollution exclusions also bar coverage because the underlying pleading alleges injury from inhaled silica and other contaminants released from stone products. It also invokes an umbrella policy exclusion for damage that first occurred before a policy period.
Those arguments do different work. The silica exclusion turns on what the underlying pleading alleges caused *any part* of the injury. The pollution provisions turn on alleged discharge, dispersal or release. The prior-damage provision turns on timing. Liberty asks for declarations on both defense and indemnity, but its requested judgment is confined to the California suit. The complaint’s count of more than 130 Wilsonart silica suits describes the wider litigation; it does not put all those suits before Judge Ezra.
Analysis: For Wilsonart’s legal department, the immediate money question is who bears the defense costs in the California suit and any indemnity that follows. The complaint spans eight policies but puts no dollar figure on the requested defense or indemnity beyond alleging that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
LM Insurance Corporation made a filing in the same court the same day. The docket for *LM Insurance Corporation v. Architectural Surfaces Group, LLC*, No. 1:26-cv-02820, shows a complaint filed October 5 and an October 7 entry reading “To be Referred to AU Mag Judge.” Business Insurance reported on October 7 that Liberty Mutual units brought both October 5 suits. The complaint itself is not available on CourtListener, so the docket shows the filing, not the policy wording or the relief LM Insurance Corporation requested.
Architectural Surfaces Group was already in an Austin coverage fight. In its September 2 complaint against the company, Colony Insurance Company says Architectural Surfaces Group sought coverage for litigation involving more than 500 lawsuits arising from its distribution of artificial stone products. Colony asks for a declaration that silica and pollution exclusions bar coverage for those underlying actions. That is Colony’s position, not a court finding.
Colony’s suit and the two October 5 filings make three dockets in 33 days in which an insurance company has sued Wilsonart or Architectural Surfaces Group in the Western District of Texas. The scoreboard: more than 130 Wilsonart silica suits by Liberty’s count and more than 500 Architectural Surfaces Group suits by Colony’s. Only Liberty’s Wilsonart complaint sets out the exclusion language behind the October 5 filings. In No. 1:26-cv-02818, Liberty filed the complaint with a civil cover sheet and Exhibits A through I. Whether two words, “any part,” leave Liberty outside the California defense is now the question on Judge Ezra's docket.
The Executive Briefing has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the Executive Briefing →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.