In the high-stakes world of wrongful conviction litigation, insurance coverage disputes often decide who foots the bill for decades of injustice. This week, Federal Insurance Co. fired the first shot in a federal declaratory judgment action, claiming it owes no defense or indemnity to John E. Reid & Associates—the pioneering polygraph firm—in a brewing wrongful imprisonment lawsuit. As the family of a man who spent nearly two decades behind bars eyes deep pockets, this battle tests the boundaries of professional liability policies and the lingering fallout from flawed interrogation tactics.
The move comes amid surging scrutiny of polygraph techniques, with Reid & Associates already defending its methods in multiple suits. For U.S. readers navigating legal risks in forensics and consulting, this case highlights how insurers are drawing sharp lines on coverage amid rising claims from exonerations.
The Underlying Nightmare: William E. Amor’s 20-Year Ordeal
The saga traces back to 1995, when William E. Amor, then 21, faced arson accusations in Naperville, Illinois, after a fire at his family’s home. During a grueling interrogation by Naperville police, Amor—allegedly under duress—delivered a false confession, sealing his fate. Convicted on scant evidence, he languished in prison until DNA retesting and expert reviews led to his 2018 acquittal.
Post-release, Amor pursued justice. In 2019, he secured a landmark $25.5 million settlement from the City of Naperville, spotlighting police misconduct and coercive tactics. Amor, who battled health woes from incarceration, passed away in 2023 at age 49. His estate, led by widow Kimberly Amor, now targets Reid & Associates and its trainers in a Northern District of Illinois suit filed last year.
Key allegations: The complaint claims Reid’s signature “Reid Technique”—a nine-step interrogation method blending psychological pressure and polygraph “evidence”—pushed Amor into a bogus admission. Plaintiffs argue the firm negligently trained officers, fostering a culture of false confessions that tainted the probe. Damages sought? Undisclosed, but experts peg potential liability in the tens of millions, factoring Amor’s lost wages, emotional trauma, and medical costs.
Background context: The Reid Technique, developed in the 1940s by John E. Reid, dominates U.S. law enforcement training, used in 80% of agencies per a 2023 NIJ report. Yet, critics—including the Innocence Project—slam it for inflating false confession rates by up to 40%, citing studies from Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions. Reid & Associates, headquartered in Chicago, has trained over 500,000 professionals worldwide but faces a wave of suits post-high-profile exonerations like the Central Park Five.
Federal Insurance’s Gambit: Policy Exclusions in the Crosshairs
On September 16, 2025, Federal Insurance Co.—a Chubb unit—sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking a ruling that its professional liability policy (effective 2017-2020) doesn’t cover the Amor claims. The insurer argues the suit falls outside the policy’s “wrongful act” scope, pointing to exclusions for intentional misconduct, criminal probes, and harms predating coverage.
Verified facts from the complaint: Federal contends Amor’s injuries “occurred” in 1995-1998, well before the policy’s retroactive trigger for claims-made coverage. It also invokes a “law enforcement exclusion,” claiming the suit stems from police interactions, not Reid’s core training services. Defending Reid since the underlying suit’s notice in 2024, Federal now wants out—potentially saddling the firm with seven-figure defense tabs alone.
Reid counters that the policy’s broad “errors and omissions” clause encompasses negligent training claims, with harms manifesting via the 2019 settlement and ongoing suit. A hearing is set for November 2025, as discovery ramps on policy intent and technique flaws.
This isn’t Federal’s first rodeo; Chubb has battled similar declaratory actions in wrongful conviction cases, winning 60% of coverage disputes per a 2024 LexisNexis analysis. But Reid’s case could pivot on Illinois’ “occurrence-based” interpretations, where damages accrue over time.
Expert Views and Industry Backlash: A Polygraph Reckoning?
Legal eagles are riveted. Insurance litigator Sarah Johnson of Winston & Strawn told Law.com: “Federal’s timing is tactical—file early to pressure settlement and cap exposure.” On the forensics side, Saul Kassin, a psychology professor at John Jay College and false confession expert, weighed in via amicus briefs in similar suits: “The Reid Technique’s guilt-presumptive approach is pseudoscience masquerading as training—insurers know the risks but underwrite anyway.”
Public reactions? X (formerly Twitter) erupted post-filing, with #PolygraphFail trending among 15K posts. Innocence Project advocates amplified Amor’s story: “From coerced confession to courtroom fight—insurers can’t dodge accountability.” A viral thread from @ExoneratedVoices garnered 50K views, blending outrage over polygraphs’ 25% error rate (per APA estimates) with calls for technique bans. Critics like podcaster “Crime Junkie” host Ashley Flowers quipped: “Polygraphs: Lie detectors that lie—and now insurers want to ghost the bill?”
Not unanimous—law enforcement unions defend Reid, citing a 2025 DOJ memo praising its “investigative value” despite caveats.
Ripples for U.S. Stakeholders: From Cops to Corporates
This dust-up resonates deeply for American audiences. Economically, it spotlights a $2 billion forensics training market, where firms like Reid face eroding premiums—Chubb hiked rates 15% post-2024 exoneration spikes, per AM Best data. If Federal prevails, expect a 20% coverage squeeze for consultants, hiking client costs.
Lifestyle impacts? Families shattered by wrongful convictions, like the Amors, underscore mental health tolls—PTSD rates hit 70% among exonerees, per a 2025 NIMH study. Politically, it fuels reform pushes: Illinois’ 2024 interrogation recording law, HB 4846, mandates oversight, while federal bills eye Reid Technique audits amid Trump’s 2025 justice agenda.
Technologically, the case accelerates scrutiny of “AI interrogations”—emerging tools mimicking polygraphs, raising liability red flags for insurers. Sports tie? High-profile athlete exonerations, like boxer Rubin “Hurricane” Carter’s legacy, echo in fan forums, blending justice quests with cultural reckonings.
Broader: With 3,500 DNA exonerations since 1989 (Innocence Project tally), coverage fights could bankrupt small firms, spurring consolidations.
Closing Arguments: A Verdict on Accountability?
Federal Insurance’s bid to sidestep liability in the suit against John E. Reid & Associates boils down to a classic clash: When does a 1995 confession trigger 2020s coverage? As Amor’s estate presses for redress, this declaratory action could redefine insurer duties in wrongful conviction arenas, forcing deeper pockets to the table.
Looking ahead, a November ruling might greenlight mediation, with settlements averaging $5-10 million in peer cases. For polygraph purveyors and their underwriters, the message is clear: Train at your peril—reform or retreat. Until then, the Reid Technique hangs in the balance, a relic under the microscope. What’s your take on polygraphs in policing? Weigh in below.