Why Travelers Walked Away From the Claim
Travelers launched the coverage litigation a month later, arguing exclusions in Ackercamps’ policies barred coverage. The ruling confirmed Travelers’ stance, finding the BIPA-related claims were unambiguously excluded as involving personal identifiers.
Judge Dugan pointed to two controlling appellate cases: Thermoflex Waukegan LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA Inc. (2024), which held that “confidential or personal information” includes biometric identifiers, and Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. Mullins Food Products Inc., which ruled that exclusions apply to BIPA claims.
“The underlying Vahle suit specifically alleged biometrics—facial geometry—were captured and used. That is enough to trigger the exclusion,” the court concluded.
Ackercamps’ Illusory Coverage Argument Fails
Ackercamps argued its insurance policies explicitly covered “photographs or likeness,” making the exclusions contradictory and coverage illusory. Judge Dugan rejected that reasoning, stating that the provisions relate strictly to publications of images, not biometric capture.
“Ackercamps does not point to any allegation … that suggests the claims were based on publication, whether to one person or many,” he ruled, finding no potential coverage existed from the start.
As a result, Travelers cannot be estopped from asserting its defenses.
