CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court order precluding a party to a West Virginia lawsuit involving opioids from prosecuting collateral litigation in a sister state, however, it believes that injunction was overly broad.
In this appeal from Boone Circuit Court, the Supreme Court considered the powers of a circuit court to manage a lawsuit by a pharmaceutical distributor against the insurance companies which provided it with liability insurance, according to a Nov. 15 majority opinion.
Justice John Hutchison authored the opinion.
Hutchison
"Specifically, the circuit court entered an 'anti-suit injunction' prohibiting the insurance companies sued in West Virginia from pursuing parallel litigation against the distributor in California," the opinion states. "As set forth below, we affirm the circuit court’s power to enter an order precluding a party to a West Virginia lawsuit from instituting or prosecuting collateral litigation in a sister state."
However, because an anti-suit injunction must be narrowly tailored to protect the court’s authority while respecting the sister state court, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s injunction order and remand the case to permit the circuit court to reconsider the breadth of its order.
The United States has experienced an epidemic of overdose deaths involving prescription and illicit opioid medications over the last 20 years and governments, businesses and individuals have sued the pharmaceutical distributors that sold prescription opioid medicines.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation was named in a 2012 lawsuit by the West Virginia attorney general. There have been thousands of lawsuits filed nationwide that are similar.
"In response, the pharmaceutical distributors have filed suits against their liability insurers seeking to recover, from the insurance policies they purchased over the years, their defense expenses as well as indemnification for settlements," the opinion states.
Hutchison wrote that the court understood the circuit court's judgment in interpreting the policies at issue in future cases in sister states, but it does not yet see that as a compelling reason to prevent the parties from litigating comparable questions of coverage for opioid lawsuits, regarding different policies, in other forums.
"As it is written, the circuit court's order does not make clear why questions pertaining to policies other than the sixteen policies identified by ABDC cannot be the subject of litigation in our sister states," Hutchison wrote. "Principles of comity require a court to act with restraint and to respect the idea that the courts of our sister states will likewise act with fairness and restraint."
The court found that the circuit court’s order regarding the anti-suit injunction was overbroad and constituted an abuse of the court’s discretion.
"Upon our review of the law and the record, we find the circuit court clearly had the authority to enter an anti-suit injunction. Hence, we affirm the circuit court's decision to enter an injunction. However, an anti-suit injunction is an exceptional remedy and must be narrowly tailored to address the equitable circumstances presented."
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 21-0036