In an article published by Law360, Goldberg Segalla partner Michael A. Hamilton, leader of the firm’s Global Insurance Services team in Pennsylvania, discussed a pair of rulings that favor the insurance industry, as a major drug manufacturer and a supermarket chain were barred from obtaining coverage for opioid claims.

The article, “Opioid Orders Weigh Insurers’ Role in Fighting Societal Harm,” by Jennifer Mandato, explores two cases that “raise the question of whether insurance is intended to help protect against widespread societal harm.”

A Missouri state court determined insurers had no coverage obligations under policies issued to Mallinckrodt, a drug company, to resolve underlying opioid claims. A couple days later, a Florida federal court determined insurers for Publix, a supermarket chain, possessed no duty to defend or indemnify the company in various lawsuits related to the opioid crisis.

“Insurance policies really are not designed to provide coverage for costs of generalized societal harm or widespread alleged societal harm,” Michael says. “Insurance policies are more designed for dealing with individualized harm, or culpability of individual defendants, and not as a funding mechanism for societal change.”

Michael goes on to say the rulings simply affirm the prevailing view in opioid coverage litigation. Specifically discussing the Publix decision in Florida, he says: “I think there are a myriad of decisions over the last few years holding in similar ways and I don’t see any reason why an appellate court in Florida would deviate from those recent rulings.”

While insurers appear to have adequately covered their bases to limit opioid-related exposure, some insurance companies have announced new types of coverage specific to life sciences companies. Michael believes there is potential for a specialty market for companies dealing with opioid risks.

“We’ve seen the market respond that way, historically, to environmental pollution policies,” he says. “When carriers put in absolute pollution exclusions in their CGL policies, it created a market for environmental-specific policies designed for particular environmental risks.”

In other mass torts litigation, such as PFAS and climate change, Michael says these claims may also serve to question the role of the insurance industry.

“In mass tort litigation asserting a public nuisance theory of recovery, the plaintiffs generally allege the existence of widespread societal harms and seek a public funding mechanism to address the increased costs associated with such harms, as we have seen in cases involving the opioid epidemic, climate change, chemicals in drinking water, and other matters of general public health,” he says, adding he understands why there is pushback from the insurance industry on such claims.

As there is now a coverage dispute with Meta Platforms Inc. regarding claims that the social media conglomerate intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive, Michael says he expects the case to play out similarly to what has occurred in these other mass tort cases.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE: “Opioid Orders Weigh Insurers’ Role In Fighting Societal Harm,” Law360, March 20, 2025 (Subscription required)

MORE ABOUT GOLDBERG SEGALLA’S Michael A. Hamilton:

Michael handles sophisticated and high-exposure insurance coverage claims and commercial litigation. As a leader of the firm’s Global Insurance Services Pennsylvania and Ohio teams, Mike focuses his practice on environmental, professional liability, construction defect, transportation, and business torts/advertising injury claims. He has been lead defense counsel in class action litigation, representing insurance companies, self-insurers, and transportation entities. He also has extensive appellate experience, arguing numerous appeals in state and federal courts across the country.