Public nuisance claims are reshaping high-stakes litigation and posing new challenges for insurers. In his latest article “Public Nuisance: Will It Sink Insurers or Is There a Life Raft?” BatesCarey partner Adam H. Fleischer explores how governmental plaintiffs are using these broad legal theories to seek industry-wide accountability for societal harms and how courts are drawing the line between societal harm and insurable risk.

Adam examines how the approach, which has been applied in opioid, climate change and social media cases, allows plaintiffs to circumvent traditional product liability standards by pursuing generalized damages rather than specific injuries, creating complex challenges for insurers.

The article highlights a shifting legal landscape in which courts are creating the boundaries for liability insurance coverage of public nuisance claims. Recent decisions draw a firmer line between traditional bodily injury claims and broader, more diffuse public nuisance allegations that lack a direct link to individual harm. This distinction is crucial for insurers seeking clarity in policy language and greater predictability when assessing exposure.

As this trend continues, insurers may find new opportunities to limit coverage obligations for large-scale societal claims that fall outside the scope of conventional liability frameworks.

Click here for the full article.

Adam Fleischer is a member of the management committee at BatesCarey and leads BatesCarey’s Opioid Coverage Task Force, advising in a broad range of disputes across the United States. He has extensive experience in insurance and reinsurance law and has been recognized by Chambers and Who’s Who Legal for his national reputation in insurance litigation.

ARIAS U.S. Quarterly is published by ARIAS U.S., a nonprofit corporation dedicated to improving the insurance and reinsurance arbitration process for both domestic and international markets.