Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2022 Ohio 3092

Masters Pharmaceutical was a wholesale distributor of prescription opioids; multiple counties and cities sued Masters alleging failure to monitor/report suspicious orders and that its conduct contributed to the opioid epidemic (claims included public nuisance, negligence, and RICO).
The governments sought aggregate economic damages: increased law-enforcement, judicial, incarceration, emergency/medical, substance-abuse-treatment costs, lost tax revenue and blight.
Masters was insured by Acuity under successive CGL policies (2010–2018) that promised a duty to defend suits seeking “damages because of bodily injury.”
Acuity sued for a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify; the trial court granted summary judgment to Acuity finding the governments sought only economic losses, not damages “because of bodily injury.”
The First District reversed, holding some governmental economic losses (e.g., medical/treatment costs) were arguably “because of bodily injury,” triggering a duty to defend.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court: because the governments sought aggregate economic losses untethered to particular bodily injuries, Acuity had no duty to defend; the Court did not decide the loss-in-progress (known-loss) issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Acuity)	Defendant's Argument (Masters)	Held
Whether a CGL policy that covers "damages because of bodily injury" obligates an insurer to defend lawsuits by governments seeking aggregate economic costs from the opioid epidemic	No — governments seek their own economic losses unconnected to any particular person’s bodily injury, so claims fall outside “because of bodily injury” coverage	Yes — some claimed economic losses (medical/treatment costs) are "because of" citizens’ bodily injuries and thus are potentially covered, triggering a duty to defend	Held: No duty to defend; the governments’ claims seek aggregate economic injury from a public-health crisis and are not tied to particular bodily injuries required by the policy language
Whether the policies’ loss-in-progress (known-loss) provision bars coverage because Masters knew of the opioid problem before the policy period	Loss-in-progress bars coverage if the insured knew the bodily injury before the policy period	Mere knowledge of risk or general awareness is insufficient to trigger the exclusion; insurer bears burden to prove exclusion	Not reached by majority (decision disposed on first issue). Trial court had relied on it, but Supreme Court did not decide.

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. H.D. Smith, L.L.C., 829 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2016) (held duty to defend where state sought costs of medical care for citizens injured by opioids)
ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Rite Aid Corp., 270 A.3d 239 (Del. 2022) (held no duty to defend where counties sought aggregate economic costs of opioid epidemic untethered to specific bodily injuries)
Kaady v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 790 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2015) (interpreting loss-in-progress provision narrowly; insured’s knowledge must relate to the same particular damage)
Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trainor, 33 Ohio St.2d 41 (Ohio 1973) (duty-to-defend inquiry is governed by the scope of allegations in the underlying complaint)