Wisconsin has a long history of being pro‐insured in insurance coverage matters. Wisconsin courts have been particularly firm with insurers who fail to defend their insureds. When insurance coverage issues began to arise in the environmental context, there was every reason to believe that Wisconsin courts would join the numerous other courts around the nation finding coverage under comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies for environmental claims. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court detoured from its normal pro‐insured position in its decision inCity of Edgerton v. General Casualty.InEdgerton,Wisconsin's highest court ruled that an insurer had no duty to defend because letters to potentially responsible parties (PRP letters) from the U.S. EPA or the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources are not “suits”; and that CERCLA response costs are not “damages”; under CGLpolicies. The supreme court has limitedEdgerton,finding inHillsandWPSthat an insured that has been sued for reimbursement of response costs incurred by another party is subject to a “suit seeking damages”; and entitled to a defense. The state of the law priorto Edgerton,the impact ofEdgerton,and recent decisions inHillsandWPSlimitingEdgertonare discussed in this article, as well as other significant Wisconsin cases affecting insurance coverage for environmental claims.