Kraft Heinz has sued Chubb and Liberty Mutual after the insurers refused to cover its defense against a growing group of lawsuits alleging its products caused serious illnesses.
The complaint, filed September 18, 2026, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, names four insurer entities. They are ACE American Insurance Company, ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, collectively part of Chubb, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
Kraft Heinz alleges the insurers breached their policies by denying coverage for what the complaint calls the Underlying Lawsuits.
Those cases form part of an expanding wave of litigation involving so-called ultra-processed foods, or UPFs. According to the complaint, Kraft Heinz has faced around 12 individual lawsuits since December 2024.
Each lawsuit alleges consumers suffered bodily injury after repeatedly consuming Kraft Heinz products. Plaintiffs specifically cite Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.
The products named across those lawsuits include Kraft Original Mac & Cheese and Heinz Tomato Ketchup. Plaintiffs also identify Oscar Mayer deli meats and A.1. Thick and Hearty Steak Sauce.
Other products include Capri Sun beverages, Kool Aid beverages and Miracle Whip Original Dressing. Velveeta cheese slices and Lunchables appear in the claims as well.
Kraft Heinz also faces a separate lawsuit filed by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu on behalf of the People of California.
The California case alleges unfair competition and public nuisance. It claims Kraft Heinz and other food manufacturers contributed to a public health crisis that has forced San Francisco to spend tens of millions of dollars on medical treatment. The insurance policies involved span almost two decades.
Chubb sold primary commercial general liability policies to Kraft Heinz or its predecessor companies every year between 2006 and 2025. CGL policies typically respond to claims alleging bodily injury.
For much of this period, the policies carried $2 mn per-occurrence limits and $7 mn aggregate limits. The limits increased to $10 mn per occurrence and $10 mn aggregate for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 policy periods.
Chubb also issued umbrella coverage between 2020 and 2025. Those policies provided $15 mn per-occurrence and aggregate limits. Kraft Heinz also purchased five higher-layer excess policies from Chubb.
Liberty Mutual issued primary CGL policies to Heinz, Kraft Heinz’s predecessor, between December 2009 and December 2015. Those Liberty policies carried $2 mn per-occurrence limits and $7 mn aggregate limits, along with a $2 mn per-occurrence deductible.
According to Kraft Heinz’s complaint, the company purchased insurance protection worth hundreds of millions of dollars across the applicable policy periods.
Kraft Heinz argues each policy requires the insurers to defend lawsuits alleging bodily injury. Some policies contain broader language covering defense costs for suits described as groundless, false or fraudulent.
The dispute now centers heavily on the insurers’ duty to defend.
The first UPF lawsuit underlying the insurance dispute was filed in Philadelphia on December 10, 2024. Kraft Heinz notified its insurers, including Chubb, and formally requested coverage on April 22, 2025.
Eleven additional individual lawsuits followed, together with the California action. Kraft Heinz says it tendered each case to its insurers after receiving the claims.
According to the complaint, Chubb did not issue a coverage decision for more than a year. On August 13, 2026, Kraft Heinz’s coverage counsel contacted Chubb’s claims representative and argued the insurer needed to begin paying defense expenses from the first dollar.
Chubb responded with two coverage position letters on September 4, 2026, roughly 17 months after Kraft Heinz first requested coverage. The letters denied coverage for both the individual UPF lawsuits and the California action.
Kraft Heinz alleges Chubb then asked the company to formally withdraw its insurance tender or enter into a tolling agreement. The complaint also states Chubb warned it might file a declaratory judgment action seeking a court ruling that no coverage obligation existed.
Liberty Mutual issued its denial earlier. According to the filing, Liberty stated on August 25, 2026, that it owed no obligation to pay defense costs or indemnity under its policies.
Kraft Heinz has funded its defense during the dispute. The complaint states the company has already spent several million dollars on legal expenses, with further defense costs continuing as the underlying litigation proceeds.
Kraft Heinz has requested attorneys’ fees and interest. The complaint also seeks punitive damages and includes a demand for a jury trial. The dispute moved quickly into federal court after filing.
Federal Insurance Company removed the case from Pennsylvania state court to the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on September 21, 2026.
The removal occurred before any defendant had been served. Federal Insurance based the move on diversity jurisdiction, arguing the parties are citizens of different states.
For insurance coverage teams and claims professionals following the UPF lawsuits, the case creates an early court test involving standard CGL language and the duty to defend.
The dispute will examine whether bodily injury allegations tied to long-term consumption of ultra-processed foods trigger defense obligations under liability policies issued across multiple years.
