Date: Jul 11, 2025

“Any Form of Radiation” Means Any Form: Seventh Circuit Affirms Broad Plain-Meaning Approach to Insurance Exclusions

Introduction

In Hammond Power Solutions, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 24-1642 (7th Cir. July 9, 2025), the Seventh Circuit confronted a familiar but unsettled insurance-coverage debate: how broadly must courts read a liability policy’s exclusion when the policy disclaims coverage for injuries arising from “any form of radiation”? The plaintiff, Hammond Power Solutions (“HPS”), a manufacturer of electrical transformers, was sued for bodily injury allegedly caused by electromagnetic-field (“EMF”) radiation emitted from its products. Its insurers, National Union and Illinois National (collectively, “AIG”), refused to defend, invoking a “Radioactive Matter Exclusion” that barred coverage for injuries arising out of radioactive matter “or any form of radiation.” Applying Wisconsin law, both the district court and the Seventh Circuit held that the phrase captures non-ionizing EMF radiation, leaving HPS without defense or indemnity.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing for a unanimous panel (Judges Ripple, Hamilton, and Pryor), Judge Hamilton affirmed summary judgment for AIG. The court:

Applied Wisconsin’s three-step coverage analysis (grant of coverage, exclusions, exceptions) and focused exclusively on the exclusion language.
Declared the phrase “any form of radiation” unambiguous; the ordinary meaning necessarily embraces EMF radiation.
Rejected Hammond’s textual and contextual arguments—including reliance on canons such as ejusdem generis—because the policy’s plain language, coupled with the disjunctive “or,” left no room for a narrower construction.
Held that because the exclusion applied, AIG had no duty to defend or indemnify, disposing as well of the bad-faith claim.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Folkman v. Quamme (Wis. 2003) and Smith v. Atlantic Mutual (Wis. 1990) – Wisconsin’s bedrock rules: construe contracts by ordinary meaning first; ambiguity required before pro-insured canons come into play. The court leaned on these cases to justify its pure textual approach.
Fontana Builders v. Assurance (Wis. 2016) – Clarifies Wisconsin’s three-step coverage test; guided the panel’s structure.
State ex rel. Kalal (Wis. 2004) – Statutory-interpretation analogue, underscoring primacy of text and context derived from the document itself.
Bernal v. NRA Group, Pierce v. ATSF Ry., and J.G. v. Wangard – Seventh Circuit and Wisconsin decisions emphasizing that “any” is expansive and unambiguous absent limiting language.
Marotz v. Hallman and Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning – Invoked by HPS to urge a narrower reading; the Seventh Circuit distinguished them because each had statutory or contextual limiters absent here.
Star Direct v. Dal Pra and Hull v. State Farm – Reinforced that “or” is disjunctive, not illustrative.
Hirschhorn & Connors – Wisconsin pollution-exclusion cases; the panel used them to show Wisconsin’s willingness to apply broad environmental exclusions literally, contrasting with Illinois’ approach in Koloms.
American States v. Koloms (Ill. 1997) – HPS’ flagship authority; the court minimized its persuasive value because Illinois courts permitted non-textual limitations that Wisconsin does not.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Textual primacy. The court began—and ended—with the wording “any form of radiation,” declaring it “broad, unqualified, and clear.” The presence of the phrase “radioactive matter or any form of radiation” made the two clauses independent; EMF need not be radioactive to fall within the latter.

b) Rejecting ambiguity tools. Because the term was unambiguous, the panel refused to:

Invoke narrow-construction rules for exclusions.
Apply ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis—those canons only solve ambiguity, not create it.
Look to policy headings, drafting history, or hypothetical “absurd” results.

c) Policy cohesion. The court dismissed redundancy concerns: overlapping language is common and acceptable in insurance drafting.

3. Anticipated Impact

EMF Litigation. Plaintiffs increasingly sue for non-ionizing radiation (cell towers, power-line EMF, 5G devices). Insurers may now rely on standard radiation exclusions in the Seventh Circuit (and by analogy in Wisconsin state courts) to deny coverage, absent policy language expressly reincluding EMF.
Drafting Repercussions. Carriers can point to this decision when negotiating premiums or offering buy-back endorsements for EMF risks. Policyholders in energy, telecommunications, and consumer-electronics sectors will need bespoke endorsements if they want EMF coverage.
Broader contract-interpretation trend. The case reaffirms Wisconsin’s (and the Seventh Circuit’s) loyalty to plain meaning, limiting courts’ readiness to invoke context or fairness to soften exclusions.
Risk Allocation Certainty. By refusing to create ambiguity where none exists, the court provides clearer ex ante signaling to both insurers and insureds: ignore broad language at your peril.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Radiation: Non-ionizing radiation generated whenever electricity flows; unlike X-rays or gamma rays, it cannot ionize atoms but is still “radiation” in common parlance.
Duty to Defend vs. Duty to Indemnify: The former obligates the insurer to pay for a policyholder’s legal defense; the latter requires payment of any settlement or judgment. If an exclusion negates coverage, both duties disappear.
Exclusion Endorsement: A separately titled section that modifies the main coverage form. Here, the “Radioactive Matter Exclusion” overrides the general grant of liability coverage.
Ejusdem Generis / Noscitur a Sociis: Latin canons of construction used to narrow a general term by reference to specific surrounding terms; applicable only when language is ambiguous.
Summary Judgment: A procedural mechanism allowing a court to resolve a case without trial when no material facts are disputed and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Hammond Power Solutions cements a straightforward but potent principle: when an insurance policy excludes injuries arising from “any form of radiation,” courts must apply that language literally, regardless of whether the radiation is ionizing, non-ionizing, environmental, or product specific. The judgment underscores Wisconsin’s fidelity to textualism, resists invitations to “fix” perceived overbreadth, and signals to policyholders that nuanced risks such as EMF require explicit coverage grants. Going forward, manufacturers, utilities, and technology firms operating within the Seventh Circuit’s reach should audit their policies and negotiate endorsements where EMF exposure is a core operational risk. For insurers, the opinion provides a sturdy judicial endorsement of broad exclusionary language, promoting predictability in risk pricing and litigation posture.