A Delaware judge has ruled that insurers do not have a duty to defend Meta Platforms in the thousands of lawsuits that allege that its Facebook and Instagram platforms harm children.
Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie ruled that Meta’s insurance companies are not obligated to provide its defense because the allegations against the company describe deliberate and intentional acts rather than accidents or occurrences that would trigger coverage under the commercial general liability policies.
The judge also found that Meta would not be prejudiced by a Delaware coverage ruling at this time.
The lawsuits against Meta have been consolidated into two actions in California. Known as the Social Media Litigation, the complaints allege that Meta intentionally designed addictive algorithms and features on Instagram and Facebook that cause young users to suffer mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.
The suits have been filed by thousands of individuals suing on behalf of children who used Meta’s platforms as well as by more than a thousand school districts and 43 states.
Hartford, Chubb and more than 20 other insurers sought a declaration in Delaware, Meta’s state of incorporation, that they owe no duty to defend Meta in the Social Media Litigation that is taking place in California.
In Meta’s view, the design choices it made constituted accidents and are thus covered by its insurance because it did not intend to cause the resulting harm, such as addiction or depression.
However, insurers successfully argued that the complaints do not need to allege that Meta intended to cause harm, just that Meta intended to engage in certain conduct, and that conduct resulted in harm. Because the harm allegedly flowed directly from deliberate design choices, the insurers argue that the “accident” requirement of the insurance policies is not met.
Meta had asked that any ruling about insurance coverage be dismissed or delayed until after the litigation is completed. It maintained that California law dictates that coverage litigation must be stayed pending resolution of the underlying action when the coverage litigation turns on facts to be litigated in the underlying action.
The Insurers contended that California law does not mandate a stay in this case because the court is not making factual determinations regarding Meta’s intent, causality, or knowledge.
Judge Rennie agreed with the insurers, finding that a stay of a ruling is not required because the issues around insurance can be resolved without making any factual determinations at all. The judge said the ruling can rest solely on the allegations by the plaintiffs:
“The conduct alleged in the Social Media Litigation—even when viewed through the lens of negligence—describes deliberate acts rather than accidents under the policies. Because the Court’s determination regarding Meta’s intent is based strictly on the face of the underlying complaints, it does not “overlap” with the factual truth of the allegations to be litigated in California.”
.The ruling applies only to the duty to defend, and not to indemnification, which could require discovery into the facts.
Meta has 30 days to appeal the matter to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The court rejected Meta’s claim that it would face potential prejudice in the underlying litigation if the ruling on defense coverage was not stayed. To the contrary, such a stay would prejudice the insurers, the court found. “An insurer’s duty to defend must be assessed at the outset of a case. Just as the insured is entitled to a prompt defense if coverage is possible, an insurer is entitled to a prompt exit when there is no potential for coverage. Delaying this determination through a stay would force Insurers to fund a defense they do not legally owe,” the opinion adds.
“Insurers have accurately stated the analytical framework,” wrote Judge Rennie. “Under the relevant policies, the Insurers’ duty to defend is triggered only by suits seeking damages caused by an ‘accident.’”
Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, internet companies are largely shielded from liability for material their users post to their sites. As part of their argument, the social media plaintiffs maintain that 1996 law does not shield the firms from responsibility for their own designs and algorithms.
Topics
Lawsuits
Interested in Digital Marketing?
Get automatic alerts for this topic.
