Judge says insurers need not defend Publix against municipal opioid suits

Insurers that issued policies to Publix Super Markets Inc. in 2013 are not obligated to defend the grocery chain against more than 60 lawsuits related to the opioid crisis, a federal judge in Tampa ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell said in Publix Super Markets Inc. v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Co. et al. that the underlying lawsuits were not brought “because of” bodily injuries, a requirement for triggering the insurers’ defense obligations.

The judge said the lawsuits brought by government entities claiming the opioid epidemic has caused them to pay more for emergency response services and law enforcement are only seeking to recover economic losses that don’t fall under the Lakeland, Florida-based grocery chain’s policies.

Publix obtained a tower of primary and excess policies in 2013 that it says provide coverage for the lawsuits. The primary policy was issued by Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. with excess policies purchased from other insurers, including units of Liberty Mutual Holding Inc. and Chubb Ltd.

The grocery chain provided notice to its insurers of the opioid lawsuits in April 2021 and informed them it had already incurred more than $6 million in defense costs. Publix sued the insurers in November 2022 after none agreed to provide a defense or coverage.

Publix moved for partial summary judgment on the insurers’ duty to defend. The insurers argued the lawsuits do not trigger their defense obligations because the underlying lawsuits were not brought because of bodily injuries and because the lawsuit is premature because Publix has not settled any of the lawsuits.

Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.