A federal judge in Florida has rejected Publix's request for a judgment that would have allowed the grocery chain to immediately appeal a ruling stating that seven of its insurance policies do not provide coverage for opioid-related lawsuits.

U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell denied Publix’s unopposed request for a final judgment on her October partial summary judgment, citing that the request was broader than the scope of her initial ruling. In her decision, Judge Honeywell had granted partial summary judgment to insurers on the seven 2013 policies, but Publix sought a final judgment covering all 17 remaining defendants and every policy for the other 23 years involved in the lawsuit.

Judge's Ruling on the Scope of the Case
Judge Honeywell clarified that Publix’s motion for partial summary judgment was limited to the 2013 policies, and thus, the issue of coverage for policies from other years had not been addressed in her October 29 order. She noted that Publix's argument that the language in all policies is similar to the 2013 policies was insufficient to make a global determination about coverage across all the policies.

The judge explained that to avoid piecemeal judgments, a final ruling on the matter would be issued only once the entire litigation is resolved. She also emphasized that any coverage determination should be made at the conclusion of the case to ensure a comprehensive decision.

Background of the Dispute
Publix initiated the coverage dispute in November 2022, seeking coverage for lawsuits consolidated in Ohio federal court. These lawsuits are part of the broader opioid litigation, which seeks damages related to the economic impact of the opioid epidemic. The lawsuits have been stayed pending the outcome of bellwether cases in multidistrict litigation involving Publix and other parties.

In April 2023, Publix filed for partial summary judgment against its insurers, arguing that they had a duty to defend the company in the opioid-related lawsuits. The insurers, including Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Co., and several others, opposed the motion. They argued that the damages sought in the lawsuits did not meet the coverage requirements under the policies.

Judge Denies Publix's Motion
Judge Honeywell denied Publix's motion for summary judgment, stating that the damages alleged in the opioid lawsuits were too far removed from the bodily injuries caused "because of" opioid addiction, as required by the policies. She explained that, under Florida law, the term "because of" implies a direct causal connection, not the broader "but-for causation" that was argued by Publix.

Legal Representation
Attorneys for Publix, ACE Property and Casualty, Liberty Insurance, and the other insurers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Publix is represented by a team from Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna LLP and Friedman PA. The insurers are represented by various law firms, including Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, and Ruggeri Parks Weinberg LLP.

Case Information
The case, Publix Super Markets Inc. v. ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Co. et al., is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under case number 8:22-cv-2569.