The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that insurers are not obligated to defend or indemnify CVS Health Corp. against opioid-related lawsuits brought by government entities, hospitals, and third-party payers, according to BestWire.
The decision upholds two earlier Superior Court rulings that rejected CVS’s coverage claims. The court concluded that the lawsuits in question did not allege damages stemming from specific, individual bodily injuries or property damage—requirements for triggering coverage under the relevant policies.
The litigation at issue included two lawsuits filed by Ohio counties, seven additional suits brought by government agencies, and a broader group of 218 suits initiated by government entities, hospitals, and third-party payers.
Although considered separately, the court said the complaints shared no meaningful differences.
Policies issued by insurers grouped under Chubb and American International Group (AIG) covered damages CVS might be legally required to pay due to “bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by an accident.
Some AIG policies also contained druggist liability endorsements, which cover injury or property damage linked to a pharmacist’s professional services, while Chubb policies carried similar pharmacist liability provisions.
However, the court found that none of the opioid-related lawsuits sought compensation for individual bodily harm or property loss. Instead, government entities pursued reimbursement for increased budgetary spending tied to the opioid crisis, hospitals cited financial strain, and third-party payers claimed economic damages from higher prescription and treatment costs.
The Supreme Court pointed to its earlier 2022 decision involving Rite Aid Corp., where it ruled similarly against insurer coverage for opioid suits.
CVS said it disagreed with the ruling. In a statement, the company emphasized that opioid medications are FDA-approved and can only be prescribed by licensed physicians authorized by the DEA.
A CVS spokesperson added that community pharmacists are subject to “vague, undefined and ever-changing standards of practice.”
Chubb did not provide a comment on the decision. AIG declined to comment publicly.
