Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company et al

  1. October 30, 2024

    Publix Denied Early Win Over Opioid Coverage Defense

    A Florida federal court rejected Publix's bid for defense cost coverage for dozens of public nuisance lawsuits related to the opioid crisis, finding that the damages sought are too far removed from particular bodily injuries caused "because of" opioid addiction, as required in Publix's policies.

  2. September 18, 2023

    Excess Insurers Prevail In Publix Opioid Suit, For Now

    A Florida federal judge dismissed claims lodged by Publix that two Allianz units wrongfully denied coverage for suits arising from the opioid epidemic, finding the court lacked jurisdiction because the allegations were premature.

  3. June 06, 2023

    Insurers Contest 2013 Policies' Coverage In Publix Opioid Row

    Six insurers told a Florida federal judge that Publix is not entitled to coverage under policies issued in 2013 for 69 opioid-related actions, arguing the grocery giant cannot show it has exhausted its self-insured retention and the underlying suits involve allegations of covered bodily injuries.

  4. April 04, 2023

    Publix Says Opioid Coverage Due Under 2013 Policies

    Publix told a Florida federal judge that 19 insurers should defend it against suits brought by governments over the opioid epidemic, arguing that primary and excess policies the supermarket giant obtained in 2013 provide coverage for damages sought "because of" bodily injuries.

  5. January 27, 2023

    Publix Excess Insurers Look To Sink Opioid Coverage Claims

    Excess insurers asked a Florida federal court to toss Publix Super Markets Inc.'s case claiming they must indemnify the grocery chain in underlying suits by governments over the opioid epidemic, calling the demand premature.

  6. November 14, 2022

    Publix Says Insurers Should Defend Opioid Suits

    Publix Super Markets told a Florida federal judge that its primary, excess and umbrella insurers should defend it in suits brought by governments over the opioid epidemic, arguing that the underling actions were brought because of potentially covered bodily injuries.