Why is Publix battling in the Florida Supreme Court?
A court case involving Florida’s native grocery chain is persisting in Tallahassee — and its outcome could have some major ramifications for the company.
The dispute began when Publix sued ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company and other insurers in federal court, arguing their policies covered Publix’s defense and potential liability in opioid lawsuits.
After the federal trial court ruled for the insurers, Publix appealed.
In June, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Florida Supreme Court to clarify state law before it decides the appeal.
WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT
In short, the case focuses on insurance coverage and “opioid lawsuits.”
Court records obtained by News 6 show local governments have sued companies like Publix in recent years, alleging their handling of opioid prescriptions contributed to addiction, overdoses and other sorts of harm.
These local governments argued they were left with the costs of responding to the opioid crisis. As such, Publix reportedly incurred major defense costs.
However, Publix claimed several of its insurers failed to honor policies to cover the company’s defense and liability costs.
Now, the court is faced with a question: Whether the governments’ claims seek damages because of “bodily injury,” as the policies require.
WHAT’S SO TRICKY ABOUT THIS CASE?
While commercial liability policies can often cover legal defense costs, there may be limits depending on the policy’s coverage.
Per court records, the insurers in this case argue the government lawsuits seek reimbursement for broad public-service expenses — not compensation for specific people’s injuries.
However, an amicus brief filed by nonprofit United Policyholders back in September voices support for Publix’s position.
“The plain text of the policy requires only a causal relationship between the bodily injuries alleged in the Opioid Lawsuits and the damages sought in those actions,” the brief reads. “If there is any ambiguity, the language must be construed in favor of the policyholder, Publix, and there is some evidence of ambiguity based on the divergent judicial opinions nationally.”
WHAT’S THE LATEST ON THIS CASE?
The case was originally sent to the Florida Supreme Court back in June, and it’s still ongoing.
This week, American Property Casualty Insurance Association (“APCIA”) and the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association (“CICLA”) filed their own amicus briefs to support the insurers in the case.
While the brief doesn’t argue about coverage for cases of “bodily injury” (i.e. overdose and addiction), it does contend that the public costs of responding to the opioid crisis are too indirectly tied to bodily injury to trigger coverage.
“Here, coverage does not apply when a governmental entity claim arises out of the financial impact of the opioid crisis on government resources,” the brief states. “For coverage to apply, the damages sought must be ‘caused by’ or ‘by reason of’ the alleged bodily injury.”
THE TAKEAWAY
Regardless of the arguments, the Florida Supreme Court’s answer will determine whether Publix’s insurers must defend or cover the company in the opioid lawsuits.
The decision does not determine whether Publix is liable for the harms alleged in those particular cases.
According to Courthouse News Service, Publix faced over 60 lawsuits related to the opioid epidemic as of December 2025.