The North Carolina Business Court ruled on July 24, 2026, in the case of Harris Teeter Supermarkets, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Company, denying Harris Teeter's claims for insurance coverage related to opioid lawsuits. This decision affects Harris Teeter's financial obligations and its ability to seek compensation from its insurers for a global settlement concerning opioid-related claims.
The dispute arose after Harris Teeter, a grocery store chain, became involved in a series of lawsuits related to the distribution of opioids. The court's ruling clarifies the obligations of insurance companies in cases where a company is released from liability under a settlement agreement.
Background
Harris Teeter Supermarkets, Inc. (formerly known as Ruddick Corporation) and its subsidiary, Harris Teeter, LLC, are the plaintiffs in this case. They are represented by several law firms, including Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The defendants in this case are multiple insurance companies, including Great American Alliance Insurance Company and Great American Assurance Company, which issued commercial general liability (CGL) policies to Harris Teeter.
The dispute centers on whether these insurance companies are obligated to cover Harris Teeter's share of liability under a global settlement agreement. This settlement was reached to resolve hundreds of lawsuits filed by governmental entities against The Kroger Co., which owns Harris Teeter, concerning damages allegedly caused by the distribution of opioid drugs. The case reached the North Carolina Business Court after Harris Teeter sought a declaratory judgment regarding its insurance coverage.
The Ruling
In its ruling, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Harris Teeter's motion for partial summary judgment. Chief Judge Michael L. Robinson stated, "Defendants owe no insurance coverage to Harris Teeter for amounts Kroger paid pursuant to the Global Settlement." The court determined that Harris Teeter was not legally obligated to pay any damages under the terms of the Global Settlement, which only required Kroger to make payments.
The court noted that Harris Teeter was a "Released Entity" in the Global Settlement, meaning it was released from liability without having to pay any portion of the settlement amount. The ruling emphasized that any allocation of liability to Harris Teeter was made internally by Kroger and did not create an enforceable obligation under the insurance policies.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Harris Teeter and its financial responsibilities regarding the opioid lawsuits. Since the court found that Harris Teeter is not legally obligated to pay damages, it cannot seek coverage from its insurers for the amounts paid by Kroger in the settlement. This decision may influence how other companies approach insurance coverage in similar legal disputes, particularly those involving settlements that release subsidiaries from liability.
The court's ruling reinforces the principle that insurance coverage is contingent upon the insured's legal obligations. As Harris Teeter is not considered liable under the Global Settlement, it sets a precedent for how companies may handle future claims related to opioid litigation and insurance coverage.
What's Next
Harris Teeter may consider appealing the court's decision, although details regarding potential appeals were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could also affect other pending lawsuits involving opioid-related claims against similar companies.