12  ILLINOIS BUSINESS LEADER
Exclusion or the Access or Disclosure 
Exclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court 
affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision 
finding the insurer had no duty to 
defend its insured in the underlying 
BIPA lawsuit.[23]
AN APPEALING 
RESOLUTION
Visual Pak offers some needed clarity 
within the insurance coverage realm, 
particularly with so many conflict­
ing decisions on each exclusion. The 
Illinois Supreme Court has granted 
several Petitions for Leave to Appeal 
surrounding the BIPA statute. The 
Visual Pak case may also find its way 
to Illinois’s highest court.
[1] See, e.g., Vance v. Microsoft Corp., 534 F. 
Supp. 3d 1301 (W.D. Wash. 2021).
[2] See Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc., No. 
3:18-CV-01880-JD, 2022 WL 976981, at 
*1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (noting the 
$650 million settlement in favor of Illinois 
Facebook users).
[3] 740 ILCS 14/15.
[4] 740 ILCS 14/5(c).
[5] 740 ILCS 14/20.
[6] Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2019 
IL 123186, ¶33.
[7] Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Thermoflex 
Waukegan, LLC, No. 20-CV-05980 JFK, 
2022 WL 602534, at *4 (N. D. Ill. Mar. 1, 
2022).
[8] Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford & Cont’l 
Ins. Co. v. Visual Pak Co., Inc., 2023 IL App 
(1st) 221160, ¶40; Thermoflex Waukegan, 
LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. USA, Inc., No. 
21-CV-788 JZL, 2022 WL 954603, at *3 
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022).
[9] Thermoflex Waukegan, 2022 WL 
602534, at *4.
[10] Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wynndalco 
Enterprises, LLC, 595 F. Supp. 3d 668, 
670 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022) (granting 
insured’s motion for judgment on the 
pleadings), aff’d, 70 F.4th 987 (7th Cir. 
2023); Am. Fam. Mut., Ins. Co., S.I. v. 
Carnagio Enterprises, Inc., No. 20-CV-3665 
JZL, 2022 WL 952533, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 
30, 2022) (granting insurer’s motion for 
summary judgment); Citizens Ins. Co. of 
Am. v. Highland Baking Co., No. 20-CV-
4997 MMP, 2022 WL 1210709, at *1 (N.D. 
Ill. Mar. 29, 2022) (granting insured’s 
motion for judgment on the pleadings); 
State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tony’s Finer 
Foods Enterprises, Inc., No. 20- CV-6199 
SCS, 2022 WL 683688, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 
Mar. 8, 2022) (denying insurer’s motion 
for summary judgment); Massachusetts 
Bay Ins. Co. v. Impact Fulfillment Servs., 
LLC, No. 1:20-CV-926 WLO, 2021 WL 
4392061, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2021) 
(granting insurer’s motion for judgment on 
the pleadings); Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
Caremel, Inc., No. 20-CV-637 HDL, 2022 
WL 79868, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2022) 
(granting insurer’s motion for summary 
judgment).
[11] Compare Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, 
2022 WL 602534, at *1 (granting insured’s 
motion for judgment on the pleadings), 
with Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, 2022 WL 
954603, at *1 (granting insurer’s motion for 
summary judgment).
[12] Visual Pak Co., Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 
221160, ¶52.
[13] Thermoflex Waukegan, 2022 WL 
602534, at *5 (quoting W. Bend Mut. Ins. 
Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 
IL 125978, ¶58).
[14] Id. at *6.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.; see also Carnagio Enterprises, 2022 
WL 952533, at *7 (“[T]he Court concludes 
that BIPA is not like the TCPA and the 
CAN-SPAM Act, because BIPA protects 
a different kind of privacy and uses a 
different method to do so.”); Wynndalco 
Enterprises, 595 F. Supp. 3d at 676 (“The 
only discernible resemblance between the 
TCPA, the CAN-SPAM Act, FCRA, and 
FACTA is that they all protect “privacy.” 
But once more, “privacy” in the BIPA 
context means something much different 
than “privacy” in the TCPA context, so the 
similarity is superficial at best.”); Caremel, 
2022 WL 79868, at *4 (“This exclusion is 
virtually identical to the provision analyzed 
in Krishna.”).
[18] Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 2021 WL 
4392061, at *7.
[19] Visual Pak Co., Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 
221160, ¶54.
[20] Id. at ¶55.
[21] Id. at ¶70.
[22] Id. at ¶70, ¶78.
[23] Id. at ¶121, ¶129.
Tags: Biometric Information Privacy Act, 
BIPA, Illinois BIPA, Visual Pak
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Visual Pak offers some 
needed clarity within 
the insurance coverage 
realm, particularly 
with so many 
conflicting decisions 
on each exclusion. The 
Illinois Supreme Court 
has granted several 
Petitions for Leave to 
Appeal surrounding 
the BIPA statute.

View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.