More than 2,400 opioid lawsuits have put opioid insurance coverage to the test. With 30+ insurers involved, one question remained: Do they have to pay for Walmart’s defense?
On October 7, 2026, the Arkansas Court of Appeals said yes.
In ACE American Insurance Co. v. Walmart, Inc., 2026 Ark. App. 476, the court affirmed a ruling that Walmart’s primary and excess insurers must defend Walmart in the opioid lawsuits.
What matters is the core of the allegations, not how the plaintiffs label them. Here, the core of the claims against Walmart is a failure to keep proper controls on suspicious opioid orders. That is negligence, not intentional misconduct. Even if filling prescriptions was intentional, a nationwide addiction crisis “could have been without foresight or expectation.”
The policies cover damages claimed by “any person or organization” for care resulting from bodily injury. Under that language, financial losses suffered by entities are covered too. The policies have no clear exclusion for these government suits, unlike the exclusions written for firearm and pollution claims.
A general clause incorporating another insurer’s terms did not bring in that policy’s New York choice-of-law or arbitration provisions, because neither is a coverage term. In any event, Arkansas law voids arbitration clauses in insurance contracts.
The duty to defend arises from the “mere possibility of coverage,” and doubts are resolved in favor of the insured. Policyholders facing mass-tort claims brought by governments or other entities should take note.
Do you agree with this decision? I’d welcome your thoughts.
To discuss your specific insurance coverage issue, please contact Jacob M. Mihm. You can also learn more about him by visiting his LinkedIn profile.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Polales Horton & Leonardi LLP is experienced in handling complex insurance coverage matters on behalf of policyholders across the United States.
