Calfee Insurance Attorneys Tae Andrews and Matthew Chiricosta Quoted in Business Insurance Article “Ohio Supreme Court’s Rulings Bring Mixed Results for Policyholders”

Mentioned and Quoted

Calfee Insurance Coverage Senior Counsel Tae Andrews and Partner Matthew A. (Matt) Chiricosta were quoted in the December 17, 2024, Business Insurance article, "Ohio Supreme Court’s Rulings Bring Mixed Results for Policyholders." The article reviews two recent Ohio Supreme Court rulings that may impact Ohio policyholders.

In an interview with reporter Shane Dilworth, Tae Andrews commented on In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, in which the Ohio Supreme Court reversed a $650.9 million verdict against three large pharmaceutical companies and found that public nuisance claims brought by two counties should be dismissed because the allegations fit within the Ohio Products Liability Act’s (OPLA) definition of a product liability claim.

Quoting the article, "The court’s 'straightforward and reasonable' interpretation of the OPLA benefits companies by potentially limiting public nuisance lawsuits brought by municipalities, said Washington-based insurance recovery attorney Tae Andrews, senior counsel at Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP."

"The decision should also prompt policyholders to look to product liability policies for coverage of public nuisance suits brought in other jurisdictions, he said."

"Additionally, companies and their brokers should consider providing wide notice under several different types of policies, he said."

Matt Chiricosta commented on Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London et al., in which "the Ohio Supreme Court reversed a ruling requiring insurers to cover Sherwin-Williams' portion of a $305 million abatement fund established to address the hazards caused by lead-based paint in California," according to the article.

Matt stated, "What the court did here was certainly a net negative for policyholders."

The article continues, "It was fortunate for policyholders that the court did not address the insurers' arguments that coverage was barred by an exclusion for expected or intended losses and that there was no coverage because the 2000 lawsuit filed by Santa Clara County, California, did not seek damages ‘because of’ personal injuries or property damage,’ he said."

Read the full Business Insurance article.