No Defense For META

Insurance coverage lawyers learn early-on the maxim that the duty to defend is more expansive than the duty to indemnify.  In general, if there are allegations against an insured that could result in liability within the policy coverage, the insurer is obligated to provide a defense to an entire lawsuit. This defense obligation does not necessarily require that the insurer cover a damage award—liability could eventually be found based solely on conduct outside the coverage.

But the Delaware Superior Court recently took a narrow view  of the scope of the insurers’ defense obligation in regard to the thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that META deliberately induced children’s addiction to its social media platforms. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ allegations against META raised only intentional conduct, excluded under the policies at issue. Although the underlying complaints included counts alleging negligence (typically distinguished from intentional acts), the court found that the harm alleged arose only from deliberate conduct and was therefore outside policy coverage. So, META is on its own in defending the thousands of addiction lawsuits against it pending in the California MDL.

One interesting aspect is that the decision leaves open whether the insurers could be on the hook for any liability imposed on META in the underlying litigation, depending on the facts developed at trial.  In other words, the duty to indemnify could be significantly broader than the duty to defend, a highly unusual outcome in the insurance coverage world.

The case is Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Instagram, LLC as. Successor in Int. to Instagram,Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, February 27, 2026,