b'EMPLOYMENT LAWExclusion or the Access or Disclosuremotion for judgment on the pleadings); Exclusion. Thus, the Appellate CourtState Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tonys Finer affirmed the Circuit Courts decisionFoods Enterprises, Inc., No. 20- CV-6199 SCS, 2022 WL 683688, at *1 (N.D. Ill. finding the insurer had no duty toMar. 8, 2022) (denying insurers motion defend its insured in the underlyingfor summary judgment); Massachusetts BIPA lawsuit.[23] 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) Visual Pak offers someAN APPEALING(granting insurers motion for judgment on needed clarity withinRESOLUTION the pleadings); Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Caremel, Inc., No. 20-CV-637 HDL, 2022 Visual Pak offers some needed clarityWL 79868, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2022) (granting insurers motion for summary the insurance coveragewithin the insurance coverage realm,judgment).particularly with so many conflict- [11] Compare Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, realm, particularlying decisions on each exclusion. The2022 WL 602534, at *1 (granting insureds Illinois Supreme Court has grantedmotion for judgment on the pleadings), with so manyseveral Petitions for Leave to Appealwith Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, 2022 WL 954603, at *1 (granting insurers motion for conflicting decisionssurrounding the BIPA statute. Thesummary judgment).Visual Pak case may also find its way[12] Visual Pak Co., Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) on each exclusion. Theto Illinoiss highest court. 221160, 52.[13] Thermoflex Waukegan, 2022 WL 602534, at *5 (quoting W. Bend Mut. Ins. Illinois Supreme Court[1] See, e.g., Vance v. Microsoft Corp., 534 F.Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 Supp. 3d 1301 (W.D. Wash. 2021). IL 125978, 58).has granted several[2] See Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc., No.[14] Id. at *6.3:18-CV-01880-JD, 2022 WL 976981, at[15] Id.Petitions for Leave to*1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (noting the[16] Id.$650 million settlement in favor of Illinois[17] Id.; see also Carnagio Enterprises, 2022 Appeal surroundingFacebook users). WL 952533, at *7 ([T]he Court concludes [3] 740 ILCS 14/15. that BIPA is not like the TCPA and the [4] 740 ILCS 14/5(c). CAN-SPAM Act, because BIPA protects the BIPA statute. [5] 740 ILCS 14/20. a different kind of privacy and uses a [6] Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2019different method to do so.); Wynndalco IL 123186, 33. Enterprises, 595 F. Supp. 3d at 676 (The [7] Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Thermoflexonly discernible resemblance between the Waukegan, LLC, No. 20-CV-05980 JFK,TCPA, the CAN-SPAM Act, FCRA, and 2022 WL 602534, at *4 (N. D. Ill. Mar. 1,FACTA is that they all protect privacy. 2022). But once more, privacy in the BIPA [8] Natl Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford & Contlcontext means something much different Ins. Co. v. Visual Pak Co., Inc., 2023 IL Appthan privacy in the TCPA context, so the (1st) 221160, 40; Thermoflex Waukegan,similarity is superficial at best.); Caremel, LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. USA, Inc., No.2022 WL 79868, at *4 (This exclusion is 21-CV-788 JZL, 2022 WL 954603, at *3virtually identical to the provision analyzed (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022). in Krishna.).[9] Thermoflex Waukegan, 2022 WL[18] Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 2021 WL 602534, at *4. 4392061, at *7.[10] Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wynndalco[19] Visual Pak Co., Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) Enterprises, LLC, 595 F. Supp. 3d 668,221160, 54.670 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022) (granting[20] Id. at 55.insureds motion for judgment on the[21] Id. at 70.pleadings), aff [22] Id. at 70, 78.d, 70 F.4th 987 (7th Cir. 2023); Am. Fam. Mut., Ins. Co., S.I. v.[23] Id. at 121, 129.Carnagio Enterprises, Inc., No. 20-CV-3665Tags: Biometric Information Privacy Act, JZL, 2022 WL 952533, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar.BIPA, Illinois BIPA, Visual Pak30, 2022) (granting insurers 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 insureds 12ILLINOIS BUSINESS LEADER'