Risk Matters Podcast | The North America opioid crisis and its impact on insurers

Episode 5

1
00:00:00,204 --> 00:00:03,044
Welcome to Risk Matters, the insurance podcast brought

2
00:00:03,045 --> 00:00:05,837
to you by DWF and your global guide
to the latest trends

3
00:00:05,838 --> 00:00:08,645
and issues in the insurance and reinsurance industry.

4
00:00:08,646 --> 00:00:10,523
Join us as we explore topical issues,

5
00:00:10,524 --> 00:00:13,613
emerging technologies and innovative strategies that
are

6
00:00:13,614 --> 00:00:15,673
shaping the global future of insurance.

7
00:00:20,364 --> 00:00:24,296
Welcome to Risk Matters, the insurance podcast from DWF.

8
00:00:24,297 --> 00:00:26,656
Today we'll be talking about the North American

9
00:00:26,657 --> 00:00:28,958
opioid crisis and some of the issues that
this

10
00:00:28,959 --> 00:00:31,083
has generated for the insurance industry.

11
00:00:31,084 --> 00:00:32,284
My name is John Groome.

12
00:00:32,285 --> 00:00:35,827
I'm a partner in DWF's global risk team.

13
00:00:35,828 --> 00:00:38,809
And today I'm joined by fellow partner, Antony Woodhouse.

14
00:00:38,810 --> 00:00:39,380
Hello, Antony.

15
00:00:39,381 --> 00:00:40,811
Hi.

16
00:00:40,812 --> 00:00:44,930
And we're very pleased to have with us two guests, Nathan Barnett.

17
00:00:44,931 --> 00:00:49,611
who is casualty claims manager for Swiss Re Corporate Solutions

18
00:00:49,612 --> 00:00:53,165
Services Limited, and Kent
Wilson, US attorney

19
00:00:53,166 --> 00:00:57,934
from Wilson and Ryan, a firm affiliated to Bates Carey in Chicago.

20
00:00:57,935 --> 00:00:58,804
Welcome, Kent.

21
00:00:58,805 --> 00:00:59,494
Thank you.

22
00:00:59,495 --> 00:01:01,624
Kent and I have been working together

23
00:01:01,625 --> 00:01:03,755
on US risks for approaching 20 years.

24
00:01:03,756 --> 00:01:07,156
In fact, I think the 20th anniversary is just upon us.

25
00:01:08,257 --> 00:01:10,664
I'm going to start off by reading

26
00:01:10,665 --> 00:01:13,518
a very short extract from the opening.

27
00:01:13,519 --> 00:01:16,494
words in the judgment in Harrington and Purdue,

28
00:01:16,495 --> 00:01:20,438
which was handed down by the US Supreme
Court in June this year.

29
00:01:20,439 --> 00:01:21,922
And it sets the scene really

30
00:01:21,923 --> 00:01:24,118
for what we're going to be talking about.

31
00:01:25,178 --> 00:01:27,138
And this is how it reads.

32
00:01:27,139 --> 00:01:32,901
Between 1999 and 2019, approximately 247,000 people

33
00:01:32,902 --> 00:01:39,818
in the United States died from
prescription opioid overdoses.

34
00:01:39,819 --> 00:01:43,380
Purdue Pharma sits at the center of that crisis.

35
00:01:43,381 --> 00:01:48,137
Owned and controlled by the Sackler family, Purdue began marketing

36
00:01:48,138 --> 00:01:52,978
Oxycontin, an opioid
prescription pain reliever in the mid-1990s.

37
00:01:53,699 --> 00:01:57,826
After Purdue earned billions of dollars in sales on the drug,

38
00:01:57,827 --> 00:02:00,901
in 2007 one of its
affiliates pleaded guilty

39
00:02:00,902 --> 00:02:05,339
to a federal felony of misbranding OxyContin as a less addictive,

40
00:02:05,340 --> 00:02:09,050
less abusable alternative to other pain medications.

41
00:02:09,711 --> 00:02:12,104
Thousands of lawsuits followed.

42
00:02:12,888 --> 00:02:17,250
Fearful that the litigation would eventually impact

43
00:02:17,251 --> 00:02:22,388
upon them directly, the Sacklersinitiated a milking program,

44
00:02:22,389 --> 00:02:26,620
withdrawing from Purdue approximately $11 billion,

45
00:02:26,621 --> 00:02:30,288
roughly 75 Percent of the firm's total assets.

46
00:02:30,289 --> 00:02:32,829
And this was over the next decade.

47
00:02:33,650 --> 00:02:34,910
But that's now.

48
00:02:34,911 --> 00:02:37,592
Let's turn the clock back to the very beginning.

49
00:02:37,593 --> 00:02:39,923
Kent, tell us about the history.

50
00:02:39,924 --> 00:02:41,684
How did this all kick off?

51
00:02:42,504 --> 00:02:50,158
In 1996, the Purdue companies instituted a new drug application

52
00:02:50,159 --> 00:02:56,821
to the FDA for Oxycontin,
which essentially was and is,

53
00:02:56,822 --> 00:03:02,208
a time release oxycodone schedule II opioid.

54
00:03:02,909 --> 00:03:08,349
Initially designed and marketed for cancer pain, the Sackler

55
00:03:08,350 --> 00:03:13,057
family who completely owned all the Purdue entities,

56
00:03:13,058 --> 00:03:16,840
started expanding the so-called use of the drug, and

57
00:03:16,841 --> 00:03:21,052
made
the fraudulent claim that it was half as addictive as

58
00:03:21,053 --> 00:03:25,021
morphine, when in fact it was more than twice as addictive

59
00:03:25,022 --> 00:03:25,922
as morphine.

60
00:03:25,923 --> 00:03:31,143
Within a matter of one or two years, death cases started

61
00:03:31,144 --> 00:03:36,025
to be reported to the FDA as
adverse event charges.

62
00:03:36,026 --> 00:03:41,820
In the fullness of time, in 2001, The opioid litigation was

63
00:03:41,821 --> 00:03:47,260
in full swing and Purdue declared under its insurances

64
00:03:47,261 --> 00:03:53,050
an
integrated occurrence, basically saying we want insurance money

65
00:03:53,051 --> 00:03:57,074
for all of the liabilities that we're incurring.

66
00:03:57,735 --> 00:04:02,773
Notwithstanding the fact that Purdue was aware of the adverse

67
00:04:02,774 --> 00:04:07,897
events and was aware that it
was marketing the drug off label,

68
00:04:07,898 --> 00:04:11,374
meaning outside the purview of FDA rules.

69
00:04:11,375 --> 00:04:14,153
It nevertheless continued selling the drug,

70
00:04:14,154 --> 00:04:16,714
promoting it in ever increasing amounts.

71
00:04:17,694 --> 00:04:24,294
The initial dosage of oxycodone and oxycontin was 10 milligrams,

72
00:04:24,295 --> 00:04:29,814
but what they realised
was they could get their market

73
00:04:29,815 --> 00:04:34,614
to increase volumes by increasing the dosages.

74
00:04:34,615 --> 00:04:37,998
So pills started being made for 40 milligrams,

75
00:04:37,999 --> 00:04:40,342
60 milligrams, 100 milligrams.

76
00:04:40,343 --> 00:04:44,701
each one more expensive to sell and to buy,

77
00:04:44,702 --> 00:04:48,064
and similarly, more addictive.

78
00:04:48,065 --> 00:04:51,046
I wonder if I could bring in Nathan at that point, just

79
00:04:51,047 --> 00:04:54,706
to see when it first registered from
an insurance point of view.

80
00:04:54,707 --> 00:04:58,247
We're going back now to 2001 we were talking about.

81
00:04:58,248 --> 00:05:01,368
And Nathan, did it come to your attention at that time?

82
00:05:01,369 --> 00:05:04,482
Yeah, well, actually, a couple of years before that,

83
00:05:04,483 --> 00:05:06,889
we had started to see the early
notices.

84
00:05:06,890 --> 00:05:09,230
So when I think it was 1999.

85
00:05:09,231 --> 00:05:12,930
individual claims that they had started to notify.

86
00:05:12,931 --> 00:05:17,802
As Kent said, was in 2001 that they batched it and gave notice

87
00:05:17,803 --> 00:05:21,310
of an integrated occurrence
of the issue.

88
00:05:22,430 --> 00:05:25,868
And then for us, that was the beginning of what was

89
00:05:25,869 --> 00:05:29,894
a decade of multi-district litigation,
class actions,

90
00:05:29,895 --> 00:05:33,250
hundreds and hundreds of individual lawsuits.

91
00:05:34,050 --> 00:05:38,444
But at that time, as Kent's saying, it was a you know,

92
00:05:38,445 --> 00:05:42,470
it was a drug that we were told was marketed ultimately

93
00:05:42,471 --> 00:05:46,945
for cancer patients and
terminally ill serious injuries.

94
00:05:46,946 --> 00:05:48,416
We're unaware, right?

95
00:05:48,417 --> 00:05:53,414
They were flooding the market with it and we very much believed

96
00:05:53,415 --> 00:05:58,220
all through that period that they were the victims in
this,

97
00:05:58,221 --> 00:06:02,778
as you were, because this we were told that the people

98
00:06:02,779 --> 00:06:07,958
that were abusing the drug were criminals and drug addicts.

99
00:06:07,959 --> 00:06:12,457
already who were crushing this tablet that was supposed to dissolve

100
00:06:12,458 --> 00:06:16,404
over 12 hours in the
system, crushing it for instant highs.

101
00:06:16,405 --> 00:06:20,667
Yeah, it was the US phrase of drinking the Kool-Aid.

102
00:06:20,668 --> 00:06:24,550
We truly believed that this was a good drug being used

103
00:06:24,551 --> 00:06:27,552
by bad people and abused for many
years.

104
00:06:27,553 --> 00:06:29,003
That was the beginning of,

105
00:06:29,004 --> 00:06:32,699
obviously we didn't know then what we know now about them
flooding

106
00:06:32,700 --> 00:06:34,877
the market and creating the addiction.

107
00:06:34,878 --> 00:06:37,391
Yeah and so Kent.

108
00:06:37,392 --> 00:06:40,418
As the years passed by, we're in about 2009,

109
00:06:40,419 --> 00:06:43,531
that they pleaded guilty to these offenses.

110
00:06:43,532 --> 00:06:45,291
Could you tell us a little bit about that?

111
00:06:45,292 --> 00:06:51,033
Yeah, the FDA came after Purdue, starting around 2005,

112
00:06:51,034 --> 00:06:56,036
doing an investigation, and it was in 2007 that

113
00:06:56,037 --> 00:07:01,462
Purdue pled guilty to a number of federal charges

114
00:07:01,463 --> 00:07:07,682
for promoting
the drug outside the bounds of FDA rules.

115
00:07:07,683 --> 00:07:11,224
and they promised that they would be good boys and not do it again.

116
00:07:11,225 --> 00:07:14,363
That having been said, that promise went out

117
00:07:14,364 --> 00:07:17,617
the window and they went back to their ways
of

118
00:07:17,618 --> 00:07:21,008
flooding the market with even more Oxycontin.

119
00:07:21,009 --> 00:07:24,333
In 2011, they decided that the primary problem

120
00:07:24,334 --> 00:07:27,658
with the drug was that if you crushed the
drug,

121
00:07:27,659 --> 00:07:32,112
you eliminated the time element and you sped up the addiction.

122
00:07:32,113 --> 00:07:36,494
So they invented a crush-proof Oxycontin.

123
00:07:36,495 --> 00:07:39,561
that they claimed was now good and was now safe,

124
00:07:39,562 --> 00:07:41,134
which in fact it was not.

125
00:07:41,135 --> 00:07:46,134
And they continued selling Oxycontin in massive amounts.

126
00:07:46,794 --> 00:07:48,472
Approximately 2018,

127
00:07:48,473 --> 00:07:53,134
they came to the realisation that they were in deep trouble.

128
00:07:53,135 --> 00:07:55,374
The litigation had taken a turn.

129
00:07:55,375 --> 00:07:58,300
They had already spent over 700 million

130
00:07:58,301 --> 00:08:01,494
in defense costs to defend the litigation.

131
00:08:02,334 --> 00:08:03,246
And...

132
00:08:03,247 --> 00:08:05,530
they were now wanting to protect, they,

133
00:08:05,531 --> 00:08:08,646
the Sackler family, wanted to protect theirfortune.

134
00:08:08,647 --> 00:08:12,766
As of around 2018, 2019, the Sackler family was

135
00:08:12,767 --> 00:08:16,886
reputed to be worth about $17 billion dollars.

136
00:08:16,887 --> 00:08:20,483
We don't know the exact number because the Purdue

137
00:08:20,484 --> 00:08:23,906
entities were all privately held
companies.

138
00:08:23,907 --> 00:08:26,166
There was about 26 of them.

139
00:08:26,167 --> 00:08:29,926
But the Sacklers were making staggering amounts of money.

140
00:08:29,933 --> 00:08:32,845
And in fact, we have seen documents where

141
00:08:32,846 --> 00:08:36,398
they were having quarterly family meetings where

142
00:08:36,399 --> 00:08:39,782
they were distributing to family members
$400

143
00:08:39,783 --> 00:08:43,166
million dollars a quarter for a number of years.

144
00:08:43,785 --> 00:08:45,266
This is the milking program.

145
00:08:45,267 --> 00:08:46,276
Mentioned in the Supreme Court.

146
00:08:46,277 --> 00:08:46,946
Exactly.

147
00:08:46,947 --> 00:08:49,346
This is the milking program.

148
00:08:49,347 --> 00:08:53,240
Upon the filing of the Chapter 11 reorganisation

149
00:08:53,241 --> 00:08:56,787
in September of 2019, the Purdue entities
had

150
00:08:56,788 --> 00:09:01,250
already formulated a potential settlement plan which would

151
00:09:01,251 --> 00:09:04,138
in fact be the plan of our organisation.

152
00:09:04,139 --> 00:09:08,658
That settlement plan called for all of the assets of all 20,

153
00:09:08,659 --> 00:09:13,270
I believe it's 26 of the
Purdue companies to be transferred

154
00:09:13,271 --> 00:09:16,393
to the trustee in bankruptcy with a value that

155
00:09:16,394 --> 00:09:20,338
Purdue claimed to be approximately $10 billion dollars.

156
00:09:20,339 --> 00:09:25,400
In addition to the transfer of assets, the Sacklers agreed

157
00:09:25,401 --> 00:09:29,430
to pony up about $3 billion of
their own money,

158
00:09:29,431 --> 00:09:35,110
which would reduce their fortune from $17 billion to $14 billion.

159
00:09:37,326 --> 00:09:41,402
For the following year or two, the creditors, the unsecured

160
00:09:41,403 --> 00:09:45,724
creditors, the secured
creditors, and the various and sundry

161
00:09:45,725 --> 00:09:50,561
plaintiffs who had been injured spent their time doing an analysis

162
00:09:50,562 --> 00:09:54,363
of what was the actual value of the Purdue companies.

163
00:09:54,364 --> 00:09:57,326
Purdue said they're all worth about $10 billion.

164
00:09:59,602 --> 00:10:02,354
The unsecured creditors committee and the creditors

165
00:10:02,355 --> 00:10:05,596
committee said not so much and the
probable likelihood is that

166
00:10:05,597 --> 00:10:08,288
those companies are worth about $2 billion dollars.

167
00:10:09,049 --> 00:10:13,704
That having been said, in the fullness of time the Purdue

168
00:10:13,705 --> 00:10:17,567
entities which did not include
the Sacklers,

169
00:10:17,568 --> 00:10:22,943
the Sacklers were not parties to the bankruptcy, filed a motion

170
00:10:22,944 --> 00:10:27,712
to the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval of "the plan".

171
00:10:28,770 --> 00:10:32,043
There were objectors to the plan, but they were

172
00:10:32,044 --> 00:10:35,567
in a minority and the Bankruptcy Court
overruled

173
00:10:35,568 --> 00:10:38,673
the objections filed and approved the plan.

174
00:10:39,193 --> 00:10:42,363
The objectors then proceeded to file an appeal

175
00:10:42,364 --> 00:10:45,939
of the approval of the plan to the next
higher court,

176
00:10:45,940 --> 00:10:49,956
which is the District, US District Court in New York City.

177
00:10:49,957 --> 00:10:55,286
The District, the claim by the objectors were that the Sacklers

178
00:10:55,287 --> 00:10:59,982
would receive relief from future lawsuits in return for

179
00:10:59,983 --> 00:11:04,962
their $3 billion contribution to the plan, not withstanding
the

180
00:11:04,963 --> 00:11:08,765
fact that they were not parties to the bankruptcy.

181
00:11:08,766 --> 00:11:13,493
The question therefore before the court was, do the Sacklers,

182
00:11:13,494 --> 00:11:17,313
who are not parties to the
bankruptcy proceeding

183
00:11:17,314 --> 00:11:21,979
and thereby not arguably protected by the Bankruptcy Act,

184
00:11:21,980 --> 00:11:26,170
nevertheless entitled to relief for future claims?

185
00:11:26,796 --> 00:11:30,178
The District Court said, no, they're not,

186
00:11:30,179 --> 00:11:33,078
which essentially blew up the plan.

187
00:11:34,830 --> 00:11:38,058
Purdue then took an appeal of that ruling

188
00:11:38,059 --> 00:11:41,193
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

189
00:11:41,194 --> 00:11:44,199
The Second Circuit reversed the District Court and said,

190
00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:47,497
no, the Sacklers can get relief,
notwithstanding the fact

191
00:11:47,498 --> 00:11:50,277
that they're not parties to the Bankruptcy Court.

192
00:11:50,278 --> 00:11:54,767
That case then went on appeal to the United States Supreme Court

193
00:11:54,768 --> 00:11:59,511
and the Supreme Court
granted certiorari such that the appeal by,

194
00:11:59,512 --> 00:12:02,562
actually the appellant in this case was Mr.

195
00:12:02,563 --> 00:12:03,534
Harrington.

196
00:12:03,535 --> 00:12:07,269
who is the US trustee for region three and one

197
00:12:07,270 --> 00:12:10,500
of the parties to the bankruptcy plan.

198
00:12:11,601 --> 00:12:17,142
Under the Supreme Court case, which was argued on December 4th

199
00:12:17,143 --> 00:12:20,765
of 2023 and decided in June
of this year,

200
00:12:20,766 --> 00:12:26,279
the Supreme Court sided with the District Court and said,

201
00:12:26,280 --> 00:12:31,678
the Sacklers do not get relief under the Bankruptcy Act.

202
00:12:31,679 --> 00:12:36,800
Absent complete consensus by all the parties to the plan.

203
00:12:37,681 --> 00:12:41,245
They are a third party and without that consensus,

204
00:12:41,246 --> 00:12:45,064
they do not have any rights under the
Bankruptcy Act.

205
00:12:45,605 --> 00:12:51,648
As a result of that ruling in June, which cemented the fact that

206
00:12:51,649 --> 00:12:58,040
the proposed plan, by
which by the way, the Sacklers had agreed

207
00:12:58,041 --> 00:13:04,562
to amend their contribution from $3 billion to $4.3 billion.

208
00:13:05,122 --> 00:13:07,077
Nevertheless, the court said,

209
00:13:07,078 --> 00:13:10,085
we can't go through this process again forever.

210
00:13:10,086 --> 00:13:15,563
So the court has assigned a mediator between the various creditor

211
00:13:15,564 --> 00:13:20,394
committees in Purdue and the
Sacklers to see if a plan that

212
00:13:20,395 --> 00:13:25,602
meets the strictures of the Supreme Court case can be assembled.

213
00:13:25,603 --> 00:13:28,804
That mediation is going on right now.

214
00:13:28,805 --> 00:13:34,850
In the meantime, the unsecured creditors committee has recently

215
00:13:34,851 --> 00:13:40,818
filed a motion again
before the Bankruptcy Court seeking leave

216
00:13:40,819 --> 00:13:46,035
to sue the Sacklers for their having looted the company.

217
00:13:46,576 --> 00:13:49,563
That motion is scheduled for hearing

218
00:13:49,564 --> 00:13:52,840
on October 27th of this month (October).

219
00:13:53,621 --> 00:13:58,115
The question for the court is not whether the Sacklers can be sued,

220
00:13:58,116 --> 00:14:00,025
the question is whether or not

221
00:14:00,026 --> 00:14:04,000
the unsecured
creditors committee has standing to sue, i.e.

222
00:14:04,001 --> 00:14:09,463
are they an entity that can claim rights against the Sacklers?

223
00:14:09,464 --> 00:14:12,546
We'll find out in a couple of weeks.

224
00:14:12,547 --> 00:14:14,518
Going back to the Supreme Court,

225
00:14:14,519 --> 00:14:16,929
it was a very close run thing, wasn't it?

226
00:14:16,930 --> 00:14:17,319
It 5-4.

227
00:14:17,320 --> 00:14:19,977
5-4 decision, which was very surprising,

228
00:14:19,978 --> 00:14:22,332
certainly to me and to most everyone.

229
00:14:22,873 --> 00:14:26,877
Every lawyer that I talked to over the the months and years

230
00:14:26,878 --> 00:14:30,798
and reviewing the briefs we were all convinced that this

231
00:14:30,799 --> 00:14:34,919
was
going to be probably either a 9-0 or a 8-1 decision in

232
00:14:34,920 --> 00:14:39,176
favour of not allowing the Sacklers to benefit from their

233
00:14:39,177 --> 00:14:40,330
criminal acts.

234
00:14:40,331 --> 00:14:43,411
The fact that it was a 5-4 decision was pretty surprising.

235
00:14:43,412 --> 00:14:46,619
Now while all that's been going on the insurers became

236
00:14:46,620 --> 00:14:49,765
involved along the way because
suddenly they found

237
00:14:49,766 --> 00:14:53,134
themselves drawn into the Bankruptcy Court in New York.

238
00:14:53,135 --> 00:14:55,994
Nathan, you'll recall this very clearly.

239
00:14:55,995 --> 00:15:00,668
Yeah, so ultimately we had resolved what was the bodily injury

240
00:15:00,669 --> 00:15:05,254
claims, which is over that
sort of going back to 20 years now.

241
00:15:05,255 --> 00:15:10,404
And those were the people that had actually been addicted to it.

242
00:15:10,405 --> 00:15:12,644
And we had paid out those bodily injury

243
00:15:12,645 --> 00:15:14,954
claims almost sort of one whole policy.

244
00:15:14,955 --> 00:15:22,350
they were to the limit almost because there was a Canadian class,

245
00:15:22,351 --> 00:15:27,418
which I think was going through around 2015.

246
00:15:28,458 --> 00:15:32,498
And we thought that was the end of the story.

247
00:15:32,499 --> 00:15:37,758
But then, obviously, Purdue brought us back in.

248
00:15:37,759 --> 00:15:40,622
And this was irrespective of whether

249
00:15:40,623 --> 00:15:44,318
insurance companies had arbitration clauses.

250
00:15:44,319 --> 00:15:47,254
They were brought into the Bankruptcy Court,

251
00:15:47,255 --> 00:15:51,118
Southern District of New York and that's when the fun began.

252
00:15:51,119 --> 00:15:55,969
What happened was in January of 2021, after most of the

253
00:15:55,970 --> 00:16:01,002
accounting had been completed in
terms of determining

254
00:16:01,003 --> 00:16:05,318
the value of the Purdue companies, the unsecured

255
00:16:05,319 --> 00:16:10,042
creditors committee in Purdue decided it's time to see

256
00:16:10,043 --> 00:16:13,782
if we can't bolster the assets by going after

257
00:16:13,783 --> 00:16:15,298
the
insurances.

258
00:16:15,299 --> 00:16:21,709
So in January of 2021, they filed a declaratory judgment suit in

259
00:16:21,710 --> 00:16:27,878
the Bankruptcy Court against all of the insurers in the
2001

260
00:16:27,879 --> 00:16:32,568
tower of Insurance, which were all Bermudian forms with

261
00:16:32,569 --> 00:16:37,918
resolution clauses requiring London arbitration with the law of

262
00:16:37,919 --> 00:16:39,378
New York to apply.

263
00:16:39,379 --> 00:16:45,442
But they also sued their post 2001 domestic insurers.

264
00:16:45,443 --> 00:16:49,730
This is kind of an interesting development because the domestic

265
00:16:49,731 --> 00:16:54,273
insurers on the heels of
the integrated occurrence that was filed

266
00:16:54,274 --> 00:16:58,806
in 2001, put products liability exclusions into their policies.

267
00:16:58,807 --> 00:17:01,706
And so they believed that they were protected.

268
00:17:01,707 --> 00:17:05,977
As it turns out, Purdue came up with the idea that we can

269
00:17:05,978 --> 00:17:10,629
sue the domestic insurers not
withstanding the products

270
00:17:10,630 --> 00:17:15,385
liability exclusion because part of the liability of

271
00:17:15,386 --> 00:17:20,035
Purdue is having the fact of their promoting opioids

272
00:17:20,036 --> 00:17:24,821
period meant that even if a victim died from
a heroin

273
00:17:24,822 --> 00:17:29,873
overdose, that heroin overdose was caused by Purdue's

274
00:17:29,874 --> 00:17:32,179
promotion of Oxycontin.

275
00:17:32,180 --> 00:17:36,704
And thereby, since heroin is not a product manufactured by Purdue,

276
00:17:36,705 --> 00:17:38,967
therefore they could
sue Purdue

277
00:17:38,968 --> 00:17:42,442
and get around the product's liability exclusion.

278
00:17:44,110 --> 00:17:49,997
The upshot of that lawsuit was the pardon me, the 2001 tower,

279
00:17:49,998 --> 00:17:55,295
which included all of the
the arbitration insurers,

280
00:17:55,296 --> 00:18:01,050
filed motions to dismiss in the Bankruptcy Court on two grounds.

281
00:18:01,051 --> 00:18:03,650
First was that the court did not have jurisdiction

282
00:18:03,651 --> 00:18:06,190
over them because there were foreign
insurers.

283
00:18:06,191 --> 00:18:10,625
And secondly, that the Federal Arbitration Act prohibited

284
00:18:10,626 --> 00:18:14,398
the unsecured creditors committee and Purdue from going

285
00:18:14,399 --> 00:18:17,722
after the insurers because of the
arbitration clause.

286
00:18:17,723 --> 00:18:22,016
The court decided not to address at all the jurisdiction question,

287
00:18:22,017 --> 00:18:26,311
but nevertheless did
address the arbitration clauses and stayed

288
00:18:26,312 --> 00:18:30,584
the actions against the arbitration insurers until such time

289
00:18:30,585 --> 00:18:35,022
as the litigation against the domestic insurers had completed.

290
00:18:35,023 --> 00:18:39,027
So from effectively from 2021 to now,

291
00:18:39,028 --> 00:18:46,263
there has been litigation ongoing against the domestic insurers.

292
00:18:46,264 --> 00:18:52,100
However once the District
Court ruled that the Sacklers could not

293
00:18:52,101 --> 00:18:57,416
get a benefit out of the plan as constituted the plan was blown

294
00:18:57,417 --> 00:19:01,502
up and the domestic insurers basically said we can't go

295
00:19:01,503 --> 00:19:06,032
forward with
litigation when we don't know what the plan is.

296
00:19:06,033 --> 00:19:09,686
So the litigation against the domestic insurers has been

297
00:19:09,687 --> 00:19:12,602
stayed as has been the case against the foreign

298
00:19:12,603 --> 00:19:16,328
arbitration
insurers and that's where it stands right now.

299
00:19:17,350 --> 00:19:23,531
The upshot is that the domestic insurance declaratory

300
00:19:23,532 --> 00:19:31,055
judgment action will recommence once
the mediation over the plan

301
00:19:31,056 --> 00:19:36,834
is concluded and a non-appealable plan is in place.

302
00:19:36,835 --> 00:19:39,775
We have no idea when that's going to be.

303
00:19:39,776 --> 00:19:43,381
The bottom line here is that assume for the sake

304
00:19:43,382 --> 00:19:47,728
of argument that a deal can be cut by the
end of this year.

305
00:19:47,729 --> 00:19:51,718
It would probably take until the middle of 2025 for the plan

306
00:19:51,719 --> 00:19:55,138
to be approved and finalised
with no objections,

307
00:19:55,139 --> 00:19:58,975
at which point the domestic insurance litigation would

308
00:19:58,976 --> 00:20:02,404
recommence and probably take another year or two.

309
00:20:02,405 --> 00:20:05,646
And once that concluded, then in theory,

310
00:20:05,647 --> 00:20:09,174
Purdue and the other entities could go after

311
00:20:09,175 --> 00:20:13,275
the foreign insurers on the
arbitration clauses.

312
00:20:13,276 --> 00:20:16,457
Yeah, and Antony is it's not just about Purdue.

313
00:20:16,458 --> 00:20:19,904
No, absolutely not I mean that's one of the key features

314
00:20:19,905 --> 00:20:22,617
here is that because of
the breadth of this

315
00:20:22,618 --> 00:20:25,865
problem and the number of different complainants

316
00:20:25,866 --> 00:20:29,656
and complaints being made the likely defendants are huge.

317
00:20:29,657 --> 00:20:30,917
I mean, there's a real range.

318
00:20:30,918 --> 00:20:34,091
So as an example, there was an MDL litigation

319
00:20:34,092 --> 00:20:38,122
in Cleveland that had brand name opioid manufacturers,

320
00:20:38,123 --> 00:20:41,092
so people like Purdue, Johnson & Johnson.

321
00:20:41,093 --> 00:20:43,706
They had generic opioid manufacturers,

322
00:20:43,707 --> 00:20:46,014
people like Mallinckrodt and Teva.

323
00:20:46,015 --> 00:20:50,293
They had opioid distributors, McKesson, Cardinal Health,

324
00:20:50,294 --> 00:20:54,658
those sort of defendants,
AmerisourceBergen, the big one.

325
00:20:54,659 --> 00:20:57,012
They had pharmacy benefits managers,

326
00:20:57,013 --> 00:20:59,662
people like Caremark and Express Scripts,

327
00:20:59,663 --> 00:21:03,121
who decided
how much could be prescribed in hospitals.

328
00:21:03,122 --> 00:21:06,636
And they had pharmacies as well high street pharmacies,

329
00:21:06,637 --> 00:21:08,057
CVS, people like that.

330
00:21:08,058 --> 00:21:11,664
And also, I mean, it's interesting, I read an article yesterday

331
00:21:11,665 --> 00:21:15,271
where there's a, other
people are being brought into this too.

332
00:21:15,272 --> 00:21:19,165
So even there's a well-known firm of strategy consultants

333
00:21:19,166 --> 00:21:23,234
who paid many hundreds of
millions of dollars because they

334
00:21:23,235 --> 00:21:27,278
advised Purdue on their strategy for selling oxycodone.

335
00:21:27,279 --> 00:21:30,504
Yeah, and I think they attended certain board meetings

336
00:21:30,505 --> 00:21:33,801
as well where those non-family
members were excluded.

337
00:21:34,974 --> 00:21:37,076
When certain important advice was given.

338
00:21:37,997 --> 00:21:40,476
But we need to look at who are making the claims

339
00:21:40,477 --> 00:21:43,353
because when it all started off, Nathan,
it was just

340
00:21:43,354 --> 00:21:46,175
individuals who'd suffered personal injury and it

341
00:21:46,176 --> 00:21:49,128
looked fairly straightforward, but it's developed.

342
00:21:49,129 --> 00:21:53,634
And what we have now are these claims that have been coming

343
00:21:53,635 --> 00:21:58,516
in now for five, six years
from cities, from states, and so on.

344
00:21:58,517 --> 00:21:59,597
Absolutely.

345
00:22:00,950 --> 00:22:03,116
the legal theories that are being argued

346
00:22:03,117 --> 00:22:04,969
by these underlying claims, Kent,

347
00:22:04,970 --> 00:22:08,532
can seem to evolve revolve
very largely around public nuisance.

348
00:22:08,533 --> 00:22:11,093
And in fact, that is the primary claim.

349
00:22:11,094 --> 00:22:14,154
And the remedy in public nuisance is abatement.

350
00:22:14,155 --> 00:22:18,325
And that raises an enormous coverage question because

351
00:22:18,326 --> 00:22:22,316
abatement is not a remedy that
addresses past harm.

352
00:22:22,317 --> 00:22:26,018
It's a remedy that addresses the elimination

353
00:22:26,019 --> 00:22:28,162
of potential future harm.

354
00:22:28,163 --> 00:22:31,423
which is not what the insurance policies are designed for.

355
00:22:33,244 --> 00:22:36,205
It's a very interesting situation.

356
00:22:37,726 --> 00:22:41,412
What makes it even more complex is there's no such

357
00:22:41,413 --> 00:22:45,728
thing as federal public nuisance law,
not withstanding

358
00:22:45,729 --> 00:22:49,136
the fact these cases are venued in a federal

359
00:22:49,137 --> 00:22:53,112
courthouse in Cleveland, the MDL for the opioids.

360
00:22:54,093 --> 00:22:59,536
Public nuisance is state law, and it varies state-to-state.

361
00:22:59,537 --> 00:23:04,182
And in fact, there has been litigation in Oklahoma,

362
00:23:04,183 --> 00:23:07,887
for example, in which the Supreme
Court

363
00:23:07,888 --> 00:23:12,374
of Oklahoma said public nuisance does not apply.

364
00:23:12,375 --> 00:23:14,514
It does not apply to the opioid.

365
00:23:14,515 --> 00:23:16,565
These are products liability cases.

366
00:23:16,566 --> 00:23:18,157
They're not public nuisance cases.

367
00:23:18,158 --> 00:23:23,485
The problem for the plaintiff lawyers is whether it's

368
00:23:23,486 --> 00:23:28,695
an opioid or whether it's lead paint,
is who made it?

369
00:23:28,696 --> 00:23:31,177
To have a product liability case, you have to able

370
00:23:31,178 --> 00:23:33,478
to identify the person who made the
product.

371
00:23:33,479 --> 00:23:38,058
But because the opioids are fungible, as is lead paint,

372
00:23:38,059 --> 00:23:41,444
there's no way to identify the bad
guys.

373
00:23:41,445 --> 00:23:47,095
And as a result, product liability claims failed across the board.

374
00:23:47,675 --> 00:23:51,652
Which is why the plaintiff bar came up with this public

375
00:23:51,653 --> 00:23:55,630
nuisance theory and the first time
I saw it being used

376
00:23:55,631 --> 00:23:59,096
was in Rhode Island and the lead paint cases and

377
00:23:59,097 --> 00:24:03,096
following a huge verdict against Dutch Boy and some of

378
00:24:03,097 --> 00:24:07,563
the other major paint manufacturers, the Supreme
Court of

379
00:24:07,564 --> 00:24:11,229
Rhode Island declared that public nuisance is an

380
00:24:11,230 --> 00:24:13,018
inappropriate remedy.

381
00:24:13,019 --> 00:24:15,658
for what are essentially product liability cases.

382
00:24:15,659 --> 00:24:19,268
So now we're coming into a very interesting area as far as the

383
00:24:19,269 --> 00:24:23,240
insurance market is
concerned because these policies that have

384
00:24:23,241 --> 00:24:27,057
been issued, Antony, you might like to say a little more about

385
00:24:27,058 --> 00:24:30,811
this, whether it be Bermuda form, whether they're domestic

386
00:24:30,812 --> 00:24:34,416
policies,
policies issued out of the London Market, never

387
00:24:34,417 --> 00:24:38,454
envisaged that they would be covering claims for public nuisance,

388
00:24:38,455 --> 00:24:40,168
certainly not for abatement.

389
00:24:40,169 --> 00:24:41,878
I think that's absolutely right, John.

390
00:24:42,860 --> 00:24:45,582
The words in the insuring clause are interesting.

391
00:24:45,583 --> 00:24:49,056
It's about liability being imposed on account

392
00:24:49,057 --> 00:24:51,818
of bodily injury or personal injury.

393
00:24:51,819 --> 00:24:54,751
And so the question is, is that broad enough to cover these claims?

394
00:24:54,752 --> 00:24:56,332
They're certainly not traditional claims.

395
00:24:56,333 --> 00:25:00,090
Your traditional claim is a person injured or a batch of people

396
00:25:00,091 --> 00:25:03,849
injured sue for their
personal injury and that gets covered.

397
00:25:03,850 --> 00:25:04,739
And you can see that.

398
00:25:04,740 --> 00:25:07,749
And then the next step removed is someone suing

399
00:25:07,750 --> 00:25:10,296
on behalf of an injured party, perhaps.

400
00:25:10,297 --> 00:25:14,167
An estate for someone who's died or a parent for someone's child.

401
00:25:14,168 --> 00:25:17,830
And they can sue because of their relative close relationship with

402
00:25:17,831 --> 00:25:21,429
the person who's
actually been injured with specific injuries.

403
00:25:21,430 --> 00:25:24,531
But these claims aren't alleging specific

404
00:25:24,532 --> 00:25:27,031
injuries that cause liabilities.

405
00:25:27,032 --> 00:25:30,186
They're talking generally about abatement costs,

406
00:25:30,187 --> 00:25:32,242
clean up costs, you might call it.

407
00:25:32,243 --> 00:25:35,264
And there's no sort of specific injury

408
00:25:35,265 --> 00:25:37,814
being relied upon or evidenced.

409
00:25:37,815 --> 00:25:39,898
So it's a totally different type of claim.

410
00:25:39,899 --> 00:25:42,389
Yeah, it's impact to the infrastructure,

411
00:25:42,390 --> 00:25:45,450
to the services and the drain on the states,
right?

412
00:25:45,451 --> 00:25:46,580
Right, yeah.

413
00:25:46,581 --> 00:25:49,001
And they're not referring it back to a specific injury.

414
00:25:49,002 --> 00:25:51,707
They're just saying, generally speaking,

415
00:25:51,708 --> 00:25:53,662
there's been all this problem.

416
00:25:53,663 --> 00:25:57,243
So this is inevitably leading to coverage disputes.

417
00:25:57,244 --> 00:26:01,145
And we've seen many of those go before the courts

418
00:26:01,146 --> 00:26:04,365
already in the US with varying results.

419
00:26:04,366 --> 00:26:07,276
Yeah, I think it's fair to say there's been a mixed bag

420
00:26:07,277 --> 00:26:10,718
in the US and that's where all the jurisprudence is coming out.

421
00:26:10,719 --> 00:26:13,569
There isn't really any in England or
in Europe or

422
00:26:13,570 --> 00:26:16,628
anywhere like that so there's been a bunch of cases in

423
00:26:16,629 --> 00:26:20,354
the US, at different states, different levels of court

424
00:26:20,355 --> 00:26:23,926
and they've been a mixed bag in terms of
whether on

425
00:26:23,927 --> 00:26:27,790
account of or because of personal injury is to be read

426
00:26:27,791 --> 00:26:28,932
broadly or not.

427
00:26:28,933 --> 00:26:32,591
I think the momentum is probably against a broad reading of

428
00:26:32,592 --> 00:26:35,699
that and that these policies are not
on account of

429
00:26:35,700 --> 00:26:39,202
language is not designed to cover abatement expenses, not

430
00:26:39,203 --> 00:26:42,658
designed to cover public nuisance,
not designed to cover

431
00:26:42,659 --> 00:26:45,731
people who are, you know, many steps removed from the

432
00:26:45,732 --> 00:26:48,872
actual injury and I think that's the momentum of it, but

433
00:26:48,873 --> 00:26:51,853
there are cases out there that say different, but
it

434
00:26:51,854 --> 00:26:53,121
depends where you are.

435
00:26:53,122 --> 00:26:56,942
I mean we've seen these policies, the Bermuda form you talked

436
00:26:56,943 --> 00:27:00,763
about earlier Kent, the Bermuda form policies are typically

437
00:27:00,764 --> 00:27:05,065
modified New York law applying to
them and they are arbitrating

438
00:27:05,066 --> 00:27:08,651
in Bermuda or London or Canada or somewhere like that.

439
00:27:08,652 --> 00:27:11,489
None of these cases in the US really impact or are

440
00:27:11,490 --> 00:27:14,754
not directly referable to those cases, I
don't think.

441
00:27:14,755 --> 00:27:17,734
Then you have US liability policies

442
00:27:17,735 --> 00:27:20,516
that may be subject to a state law.

443
00:27:20,517 --> 00:27:24,655
They are probably much more dependent upon this jurisprudence

444
00:27:24,656 --> 00:27:28,795
coming out the US and then you might have London Market policies

445
00:27:28,796 --> 00:27:32,628
or European policies that might have
English law and English

446
00:27:32,629 --> 00:27:36,167
law is way behind on decisions making about on account of.

447
00:27:36,168 --> 00:27:38,833
Well, I don't think any of the opioid coverage

448
00:27:38,834 --> 00:27:41,641
cases have come before a court in this
country.

449
00:27:41,642 --> 00:27:42,072
Right.

450
00:27:42,073 --> 00:27:45,249
I mean, the decisions, few that there are,

451
00:27:45,250 --> 00:27:48,609
have been in arbitrations and that's likely

452
00:27:48,610 --> 00:27:51,878
to remain the case, I think, for some while.

453
00:27:51,879 --> 00:27:55,626
Although we have seen a number of cases in the US where,

454
00:27:55,627 --> 00:27:58,292
once again, as with, as Purdue
tried,

455
00:27:58,293 --> 00:28:01,625
and that is to embroil insurers in proceedings.

456
00:28:01,626 --> 00:28:06,166
We've seen it with Mallinckrodt, in Missouri, for example, we've

457
00:28:06,167 --> 00:28:10,213
seen it in New Jersey with Rite Aid and I go to Mallinckrodt.

458
00:28:10,214 --> 00:28:13,534
It's creditor committees, again, that are looking

459
00:28:13,535 --> 00:28:17,345
to bring the
insurers into the proceedings, irrespective

460
00:28:17,346 --> 00:28:21,287
of the fact that they may have English governing law provisions,

461
00:28:21,288 --> 00:28:23,842
English jurisdiction clauses, and so on.

462
00:28:23,843 --> 00:28:25,988
I mean, those attempts have been unsuccessful.

463
00:28:25,989 --> 00:28:29,086
It remains to be seen whether proceedings are ever

464
00:28:29,087 --> 00:28:31,890
commenced in the Commercial Court in
the UK.

465
00:28:32,986 --> 00:28:35,246
We'll have to wait and see on that front.

466
00:28:35,247 --> 00:28:41,290
In the case of Purdue, it's also an interesting phenomenon that

467
00:28:41,291 --> 00:28:46,081
at the beginning of the
Purdue bankruptcy event,

468
00:28:46,082 --> 00:28:49,481
the filing of the Chapter 11 petition,

469
00:28:49,482 --> 00:28:55,326
the potential claimants were given 180 days to file their claims.

470
00:28:55,327 --> 00:29:00,124
And there were 615,000 of these claims

471
00:29:00,125 --> 00:29:04,322
that were posited with the court.

472
00:29:04,323 --> 00:29:07,891
The theoretical value, theoretical value

473
00:29:07,892 --> 00:29:11,956
of those claims
was in the trillions of dollars.

474
00:29:12,777 --> 00:29:17,539
That having been said, the total assets available from the Purdue

475
00:29:17,540 --> 00:29:22,043
companies is arguably
not more than $2 or $3 billion dollars.

476
00:29:22,044 --> 00:29:27,147
So when you talk about allocating available monies to cases

477
00:29:27,148 --> 00:29:32,105
that are worth theoretically
trillions of dollars, each

478
00:29:32,106 --> 00:29:36,535
claimant would get a dime or a nickel or a quarter or you

479
00:29:36,536 --> 00:29:40,903
know enough money to buy a
stick of gum or whatever the

480
00:29:40,904 --> 00:29:45,223
case may be, so the practical reality is that why and by

481
00:29:45,224 --> 00:29:48,964
the way let me back up for just a moment, the 2001

482
00:29:48,965 --> 00:29:53,760
insurance tower as
originally written was approximately

483
00:29:53,761 --> 00:29:55,584
$950 million dollars.

484
00:29:55,585 --> 00:29:59,913
That tower now has about $700 dollars million of available

485
00:29:59,914 --> 00:30:04,747
insurance, so you're looking at even if you add a couple billion

486
00:30:04,748 --> 00:30:10,246
dollars worth of Purdue assets to that $700 million dollars

487
00:30:10,247 --> 00:30:15,196
in
insurance, you're looking at a drop in the bucket.

488
00:30:15,197 --> 00:30:20,890
Also I am aware of the fact that notwithstanding the fact that the

489
00:30:20,891 --> 00:30:26,559
domestic insurer cases
in the Bankruptcy Court are stayed at the

490
00:30:26,560 --> 00:30:31,559
moment, nevertheless, my understanding is that there may be a

491
00:30:31,560 --> 00:30:36,196
motion for summary judgment on the horizon where the domestic

492
00:30:36,197 --> 00:30:40,717
insurers
basically seek to dispose of all the cases against them

493
00:30:40,718 --> 00:30:45,073
on the grounds of their products liability exclusions basically

494
00:30:45,074 --> 00:30:49,217
saying public nuisance doesn't apply and we exclude
products

495
00:30:49,218 --> 00:30:49,999
liability.

496
00:30:50,000 --> 00:30:54,807
And if at that time they then come after the arbitration insurers

497
00:30:54,808 --> 00:30:59,795
they face multiple or they could be facing multiple arbitrations.

498
00:30:59,796 --> 00:31:03,129
There are 16 insurers, pardon me,

499
00:31:03,130 --> 00:31:06,940
16 foreign insurers in the 2001 tower.

500
00:31:06,941 --> 00:31:11,093
So theoretically, if they wanted to go after those insurers,

501
00:31:11,094 --> 00:31:14,786
they'd have to institute 16
separate arbitrations,

502
00:31:14,787 --> 00:31:17,085
which probably would not happen.

503
00:31:17,086 --> 00:31:22,277
My guess is they would probably pick out a target defendant and see

504
00:31:22,278 --> 00:31:27,374
what, probably one of
the larger targets, and see what happens.

505
00:31:27,375 --> 00:31:29,982
That would take, the arbitration itself

506
00:31:29,983 --> 00:31:31,977
is going to take several years.

507
00:31:31,978 --> 00:31:34,879
Yeah, yeah, I can see that happening.

508
00:31:34,880 --> 00:31:39,409
So what lessons are to be learned from the experience

509
00:31:39,410 --> 00:31:42,293
to date and looking to the future?

510
00:31:42,294 --> 00:31:46,571
What impact is the opioid coverage litigation likely to have,

511
00:31:46,572 --> 00:31:50,274
for example, on the PFAS
claims that we're now seeing

512
00:31:50,275 --> 00:31:54,647
through the per and polyfluoroalkyl substances claims,

513
00:31:54,648 --> 00:31:59,659
the forever chemicals microplastics, climate change, and so on.

514
00:32:00,300 --> 00:32:03,975
These public nuisance theories are going to impact that type of

515
00:32:03,976 --> 00:32:07,790
claim as well, I would
have thought, for the insurance industry.

516
00:32:07,791 --> 00:32:13,603
If I was going to hazard a guess what either is developing or

517
00:32:13,604 --> 00:32:19,299
will develop is tighter definitions of what is a product.

518
00:32:19,839 --> 00:32:24,159
For example, in the PFAS context, we're talking about molecules,

519
00:32:24,160 --> 00:32:27,381
but there's thousands of
different molecules.

520
00:32:28,561 --> 00:32:31,727
Some years ago, there was litigation involving,

521
00:32:31,728 --> 00:32:35,203
and still is litigation involving Monsanto's
PCBs.

522
00:32:36,624 --> 00:32:41,198
We learned that there are 209 different varieties of PCBs,

523
00:32:41,199 --> 00:32:45,306
only a handful of which are
harmful to human beings.

524
00:32:45,850 --> 00:32:49,569
We know that there are thousands of PFAS chemicals,

525
00:32:49,570 --> 00:32:54,414
which are compound chemicals made up
of various and sundry atoms,

526
00:32:54,415 --> 00:32:58,004
where some of those compounds may be harmful to human

527
00:32:58,005 --> 00:33:01,757
beings and many of them are not harmful to human beings.

528
00:33:01,758 --> 00:33:05,927
The fact of the matter is, even if you read the studies that are

529
00:33:05,928 --> 00:33:10,261
out there now in the PFAS
context, virtually every human being

530
00:33:10,262 --> 00:33:14,482
on planet Earth has boatloads of PFAS atoms in their bodies,

531
00:33:14,483 --> 00:33:18,957
yet the overwhelming majority of people have not been harmed so

532
00:33:18,958 --> 00:33:22,728
that
in fact that is going to be one of the key areas of

533
00:33:22,729 --> 00:33:27,100
defence in the PFAS litigation which is general and specific

534
00:33:27,101 --> 00:33:27,961
causation.

535
00:33:27,962 --> 00:33:30,036
Yeah yeah I can see that yeah.

536
00:33:30,037 --> 00:33:34,221
I think also for insurers
I mean this is the way that things are

537
00:33:34,222 --> 00:33:38,044
going, so as you say PFAS is very similar cause of action for

538
00:33:38,045 --> 00:33:41,660
abatement costs and things like clean-up costs I described it

539
00:33:41,661 --> 00:33:45,022
earlier Same for climate change, same for microplastics and

540
00:33:45,023 --> 00:33:48,074
surely the insurers, I think that I have to take the bull by the

541
00:33:48,075 --> 00:33:50,859
horns a little bit because
it's all very well slapping on an

542
00:33:50,860 --> 00:33:53,662
exclusion for PFAS after the event, but that doesn't deal with

543
00:33:53,663 --> 00:33:54,406
the next crisis.

544
00:33:54,407 --> 00:33:56,487
So, they may have to think about,

545
00:33:56,488 --> 00:34:01,006
not directly changing the insuring clause, but doing
little tweaks

546
00:34:01,007 --> 00:34:03,862
to the policy that make it clearer that what

547
00:34:03,863 --> 00:34:06,798
is designed to be covered is more immediate.

548
00:34:06,799 --> 00:34:09,957
complainants that are very directly associated

549
00:34:09,958 --> 00:34:12,500
with the actual injury being suffered.

550
00:34:12,501 --> 00:34:16,821
That is already partly in the works if you look,

551
00:34:16,822 --> 00:34:22,583
if you compare the XL003 form to the XL004 form, you'll see that

552
00:34:22,584 --> 00:34:27,874
the coverage on
the on account of personal injury refers

553
00:34:27,875 --> 00:34:33,589
specifically in the 004 form to injury of a particular person.

554
00:34:33,590 --> 00:34:34,389
An individual.

555
00:34:34,390 --> 00:34:36,087
An individual.

556
00:34:36,088 --> 00:34:38,989
Which solves that problem to a certain extent.

557
00:34:38,990 --> 00:34:43,356
I also think that there may come a time when the very idea

558
00:34:43,357 --> 00:34:46,678
of public nuisances is simply
excluded.

559
00:34:46,679 --> 00:34:47,998
Yes.

560
00:34:47,999 --> 00:34:51,072
That would seem to me to be the answer.

561
00:34:52,654 --> 00:34:55,275
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your contribution today.

562
00:34:55,276 --> 00:34:57,515
Very much appreciated.

563
00:34:57,516 --> 00:34:58,756
Thank you for listening.

564
00:34:58,757 --> 00:35:02,157
We hope you found it insightful and thank you to our guests.

565
00:35:02,158 --> 00:35:05,085
Kent, thank you for making the trip over

566
00:35:05,086 --> 00:35:07,038
to London to join us today.

567
00:35:07,039 --> 00:35:07,948
You're very welcome, you're very welcome.

568
00:35:07,949 --> 00:35:09,999
Nathan, thank you for making the trip

569
00:35:10,000 --> 00:35:11,720
across London to join us today.

570
00:35:11,721 --> 00:35:13,620
Very much appreciated.

571
00:35:13,621 --> 00:35:16,211
And we hope you'll join us again

572
00:35:16,212 --> 00:35:19,102
for the next episode in the series.

573
00:35:20,718 --> 00:35:24,732
Thank you for listening to Risk Matters, the DWF insurance podcast.

574
00:35:24,733 --> 00:35:28,301
We hope you join us again soon for future podcasts in our series.

Legal Services

Legal Operations

Business Services

Solutions

Commentary

Latest

Resources

The North America opioid crisis and its impact on insurers

Listen to the podcast

Watch the video

Audio Transcripts

Risk Matters: The DWF insurance podcast - Explore all episodes

Key contacts

John Groome

Antony Woodhouse

Further Reading

Legal Services

Legal Operations

Business Services

Solutions

Commentary

Latest

Resources

Legal Services

Legal Operations

Business Services

Solutions

Commentary

Latest

Resources

The North America opioid crisis and its impact on insurers

Listen to the podcast

Watch the video

Audio Transcripts

Risk Matters: The DWF insurance podcast - Explore all episodes

Key contacts

John Groome

Antony Woodhouse

Related Sectors

Related Services

Further Reading