Opiod Producer Seeks Indemnity from CGL Insurers
Post number 5288
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guNhStN2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYqkk-n3 and at https://lnkd.in/g8U3ehuc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurers Exclude Damages Due to Insured’s Products
In Matthew Dundon, As The Trustee Of The Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-4221, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 10, 2026) Matthew Dundon, trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust, sued multiple commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for coverage of opioid-related litigation involving Endo International PLC a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
KEY FACTS
Beginning as early as 2014, thousands of opioid suits were filed by governments, third parties, and individuals alleging harms tied to opioid manufacturing and marketing.
Bankruptcy & Settlements
Endo filed Chapter 11 in August 2022; before bankruptcy it allegedly settled many opioid suits and incurred substantial defense costs. A reorganization plan confirmed in March 2024 discharged opioid claims and created the Trust with Dundon as trustee.
Motions
CGL insurers sought summary judgment on late notice and the Products Exclusion; the Trustee cross-moved.
Governing Law – Pennsylvania Insurance Law.
Insurance Policies are construed under traditional contract principles; unambiguous language enforced as written. Coverage interpretation is a question of law when unambiguous.
DISCUSSION & HOLDINGS
Endo failed to provide notice “as soon as practicable,” notifying insurers only when the coverage action was filed in 2024 — after settlements and bankruptcy resolution.
Prejudice Not Established as a Matter of Law.
Although late notice impaired insurers’ procedural rights (investigation, defense participation), Third Circuit precedent requires proof that lateness probably altered the substantive outcome (e.g., lower settlement or viable defenses lost). The record showed factual disputes on that point. Result: Summary judgment denied on late notice.
Unbranded Promotions Included.
Allegations show Endo’s unbranded marketing was part of efforts to expand opioid use and sales; injuries allegedly flowing from such campaigns bear a sufficient causal connection to Endo’s products. The Products Exclusion bars coverage for bodily injury claims arising from Endo’s products, including unbranded promotions.
ANALYSIS
The Court enforced clear notice terms but adhered to Pennsylvania’s insurer‑protective yet insured‑fair actual prejudice requirement, refusing to presume prejudice solely from post‑settlement notice absent proof of a different likely outcome.
BOTTOM LINE
Late Notice:
Breach established, but no summary judgment due to disputed actual prejudice.
Products Exclusion:
Coverage barred for bodily injury claims arising from Endo’s products, including unbranded promotions.
Endo Breached the Notice Provisions by Providing Late Notice
The CGL Insurers’ policies contained clear and unambiguous provisions requiring that notice be provided to them “as soon as practicable of an ‘occurrence’ or an offense which may result in a claim.”
A Genuine Dispute Remains as to Whether the CGL Insurers Suffered Actual Prejudice
The CGL Insurers argued in their motion for summary judgment that “post-settlement notice is prejudicial” to insurers as a matter of law. The Court found that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether this procedural handicap created by the late notice has led to disadvantageous, substantive results for the CGL Insurers.
Summary Judgment Was Granted in Favor of the CGL Insurers on the Basis of the Products Exclusion
The Court held that the Products Exclusion bars coverage of the Opioid Suits to the extent the underlying suits involve claims for bodily injury arising from Endo’s products, including Endo’s unbranded promotions.
The Court also granted in part and denied in part the CGL Insurers’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Finally, the Court denied the Trustee’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
ZALMA OPINION
The USDC issued a lengthy opinion concluding the even though the notice of the losses was later than was proper the insurers failed to prove that the late notice caused them damage but the insurers were able to prove that the exclusions applied. Lawsuits from major tort situations like the opioid catastrophe are usually not intended to cover such losses and the exclusions were clear and unambiguous. Resolving this type of coverage dispute is not easy and it took the USDC more than 50 pages to explain the decisions and, yet, all the issues were not resolved.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
