The Delaware Supreme Court on Monday ruled that insurance company Chubb Ltd is not required to provide coverage and defend Rite Aid Corp in lawsuits accusing the pharmacy chain operator of fueling the opioid epidemic. The ruling came in one of several disputes nationwide involving pharmaceutical companies, drug distributors and pharmacies suing insurers in order to recoup the costs of defending against and settling thousands of opioid lawsuits. A lower-court judge in 2020 found that various Chubb subsidiaries were required to defend Rite Aid against bellwether lawsuits by two Ohio counties in the federal multidistrict litigation over the epidemic. But Delaware"s top court reversed, concluding that policies covering personal injury cases did not require Chubb to defend Rite Aid against lawsuits seeking only economic damages. Rite Aid and its lawyer, Gerald Konkel of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, did not respond to requests for comment. Chubb and its lawyers, including Jonathan Hacker of O"Melveny & Myers, had no comment. More than 3,000 lawsuits have been filed nationally by largely state and local governments seeking to hold the companies responsible for an opioid abuse crisis that has led to hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths. The lawsuits accuse Rite Aid of negligently distributing addictive prescription pain pills. The company denies wrongdoing, and in 2019 sued Chubb to recover the costs of its defense and future settlements. In Monday"s ruling, Chief Justice Collins Seitz, said that for Rite Aid to receive coverage, the lawsuits needed to be brought by people injured by opioids – individuals suing on their own behalf or anyone who cared for or treated them. But in the case of Ohio"s Summit and Cuyahoga counties, which brought opioid claims similar to other local governments, they specifically said they were not seeking recovery for any residents" personal injuries, Seitz said. They instead sued to recover for injuries the counties suffered by being saddled with the economic burden of higher demands for medical treatment and impacts on their criminal justice systems, Seitz wrote for the 4-1 court. "This claim is not directed to an individual injury but to a public health crisis," Seitz said. Justice James Vaughn dissented, saying Chubb"s policy language should be interpreted broadly to cover all damages an organization could bring against Rite Aid for the care, loss of services or death of someone due to opioid addiction. The case is ACE American Insurance Co, v. Rite Aid Corp, Delaware Supreme Court, No. N19C-04-150. For Chubb: Jonathan Hacker of O"Melveny & Myers For Rite Aid: Gerald Konkel of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius