However, as a practical matter, there are several problems (where, like “anthropogenic global warming” theory, realities crash headlong into theoreticals):

a) most larger coporations have already reached settlement with any old insurers who wrote such policies. This isn’t so much the case for smaller and mid-sized companies, but I can assure you that for most of the Fortune 500, this is the case.

b) some/many of those former insurers are now insolvent. you can’t get blood out of a turnip, as we say down south

c) once presented with legitimate claims under pre-86 policies without pollution exclusions, insurers don’t simply say “OK, here’s a check”. Most insurers faced with this situation fight long and hard before coughing up claims dollars for remediation under these old policies. Most such cases go to litigation, or settle on the courthouse steps only after litigation is filed. This presents a heck of a timing problem for a PRP corporation or for a developer buying a brownfield site. Both need remediation dollars NOW to make the deal work, and these settlements almost never occur in a time frame that is relevant for the timing of necessary remediation expenditures.

Yes, theoretically, old liability policies with no pollution exclusion can be a source of funds. As a practical matter, I’d challenge anyone to come up with a legitimate example of where such funds have been recovered in the time frame of a contract between seller and buyer and the buyer’s redevelopment activities.