Calfee Insurance Coverage Attorney Tae Andrews Quoted in Law360 Article “3M, Meta MDLs Top General Liability Cases To Watch In 2025”

Mentioned and Quoted

Calfee Insurance Coverage Senior Counsel Tae Andrews was quoted in the January 1, 2025, Law360 article, “3M, Meta MDLs Top General Liability Cases To Watch In 2025,” which provides an overview of significant 2025 general liability insurance cases.

In an interview with reporter Hope Patti, Tae commented on Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. et al. v. RI Settlement Trust et al., in which “the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider whether public policy nullifies an insurer's duty to defend and indemnify when a policyholder is accused of enabling or profiting from sex trafficking.” The case was referred by the Third Circuit in August, noting that the “full scope of the public policy exception to an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify was not clear in this case, where a Philadelphia hotel and its owner were accused of participating in sex trafficking.”

Quoting the article, “‘The judge is essentially deciding to punish the policyholders for the allegations against them by ruling that they cannot access insurance coverage to pay for their losses,’ Andrews said, adding that the judge failed to address the legal issue of whether the policy provides defense or indemnity for the underlying suits.

“This case could have astronomical consequences for policyholders if the Pennsylvania high court finds that mere allegations of trafficking are uninsurable under public policy, Andrews added.

‘I think this is too broad and is judicial overreach,’ he said.”

Tae also commented on Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. et al. v. Instagram LLC et al., in which the Delaware Superior Court will consider the stance of Hartford insurers that they do not have a duty to defend Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, against suits that accuse the company of designing its social media platforms to be addictive to minors and of hiding potential harmful effects. Hartford and Sentinel assert that actions brought against Meta “by governments and school districts don’t allege damages ‘because of’ bodily injury or personal and advertising injury as required by the policies.” The insurance companies assert that the suits seek to recover economic losses.

The location of the filing is of interest to insurance attorneys because of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in favor of insurers in Ace American Insurance Co. et al. v. Rite Aid Corp. et al., in which the court ruled that “Chubb insurers had no duty to defend the pharmacy giant against suits brought by Ohio counties over the cost of responding to the opioid epidemic because the underlying actions only sought recovery of economic losses.

Quoting the article, “Andrews added that Meta and its affiliated companies should try to get the case out of Delaware because of the Rite Aid decision, but even if they don't, there are enough wrinkles to result in a different outcome than the Rite Aid case, especially at the duty to defend stage.

“For example, the Rite Aid decision found that an organization seeking to recover costs incurred in caring for bodily injury must show that it treated an individual with an injury, how much that treatment cost and that the injury was caused by the insured. However, Andrews said, those requirements are not rooted in the policy language.

‘So perhaps you could have a different composition of a court that could reach a different result,’ he said.”

Read the full Law360 article.

Note that this publication may require a subscription to access the referenced article. Contact info@calfee.com if we can be of assistance.