June 4, 2026

In re Albertsons Opioid Insurance Litigation, the Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment to a group of commercial general liability (CGL) insurers, holding that Albertsons was not entitled to defense or indemnity coverage for more than 100 CGL policies implicated by nationwide opioid-related lawsuits. The decision continues Delaware’s developing body of opioid coverage law and reinforces a significant limitation on CGL coverage for public-entity opioid claims.

The ruling closely follows the Delaware Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in ACE American Insurance Co. v. Rite Aid Corp. and In re CVS Opioid Insurance Litigation, signaling that Delaware courts are applying a consistent framework to evaluate whether governmental opioid lawsuits are covered under traditional CGL policy language.

Background

Albertsons sought coverage for approximately 109 lawsuits alleging that its pharmacy operations contributed to the opioid epidemic. The governmental plaintiffs sought recovery for a variety of public expenditures, including healthcare costs, addiction treatment, law enforcement expenses, and other costs associated with opioid misuse.

Albertsons argued that these claims potentially fell within CGL coverage because they sought damages “because of bodily injury” and, in some instances, alleged property-related harms. The insurers disagreed, arguing that the claims mirrored those already rejected by the Delaware Supreme Court in Rite Aid and CVS.

The Court’s Decision

The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, concluding that the underlying opioid lawsuits did not seek damages “because of bodily injury” as required by the CGL policies. Relying on the Delaware Supreme Court’s decisions in Rite Aid and CVS, the court found that the governmental plaintiffs primarily sought recovery for their own economic losses arising from the opioid crisis, rather than damages directly tied to specific bodily injuries.

The court also rejected Albertsons’ arguments that California or Idaho law should apply, that allegations of property damage triggered coverage, and that pharmacist-related endorsements expanded coverage. As a result, the court held that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify Albertsons in the underlying opioid litigation.

Key Takeaways

The Albertsons decision further cements several important principles for insurers and policyholders confronting opioid-related coverage disputes:

• Delaware continues to be a significant forum for insurers seeking declaratory relief on opioid CGL coverage claims.

The decision reinforces Delaware’s narrow interpretation of damages sought “because of” bodily injury in the context of governmental opioid actions.

• Choice-of-law arguments face a high bar.

Parties cannot avoid unfavorable Delaware precedent merely by asserting that another jurisdiction might interpret policy language differently, absent clear conflicting authority.

• Economic-loss allegations remain vulnerable.

Claims seeking reimbursement for generalized governmental expenditures tied to public health crises are unlikely to satisfy Delaware’s direct-relationship requirement.

• Traditional CGL language may provide limited protection against mass-tort public nuisance claims.

The ruling highlights the continuing tension between standard CGL policy wording and modern public-health litigation theories.

Looking Ahead

The decision confirms that Delaware courts view Rite Aid and CVS as part of a broader framework governing opioid-related insurance disputes. Unless underlying claims seek damages tied to specific bodily injuries or property damage, policyholders pursuing CGL coverage for governmental opioid actions will likely continue to face significant coverage challenges.

If you have questions regarding this decision or its potential impact on your organization’s insurance coverage, litigation exposure, or risk management strategies, please contact Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP Managing Partner Louis J. Rizzo, Jr. at lrizzo@regerlaw.com or 302-477-7100.