Over the past decade, states and local governments across the country have filed thousands of lawsuits against pharmacies, manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids for their alleged role in contributing to opioid-related bodily injuries. Owing to the deluge of lawsuits, many of these cases have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for common defense. And with the encouragement of the district court, many of the defendants in these cases have also negotiated global settlements to resolve the voluminous claims brought against them.

Understandably, many of these defendants asked their insurers to defend and indemnify them in the litigation. But despite having received substantial premiums for years, general liability insurers have denied coverage for the industry, and many have filed declaratory judgment actions against their policyholders on the coverage questions. To date, only a handful of federal courts of appeals have ruled on whether insurers owe a duty to defend and indemnify their policyholders for prescription opioid suits. The most recent of these decisions, Westfield National Insurance v. Quest Pharmaceuticals, 57 F.4th 558 (6th Cir. 2023), merits closer inspection, especially as the stipulated facts that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit relied upon appear at odds with the allegations in the underlying opioid-related lawsuits.