In Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Instagram LLC, the Delaware Superior Court granted the insurers’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that various primary and excess general liability insurers had no duty to defend Meta in an underlying social media litigation, as none of the allegations — whether express, implied, or extrinsic — supported a conclusion that Meta’s conduct was an accidental “occurrence.”
Meta — the parent company of social media platforms Facebook and Instagram — was sued in thousands of lawsuits consolidated into two primary proceedings in California. The suits alleged generally that Meta’s platforms caused harm to children by maximizing engagement with addictive features, exploiting psychological vulnerabilities, and intentionally targeting minors with these features. The plaintiffs in the underlying suits — individuals suing on behalf of children who used Meta’s platforms; school districts and local governments; and 43 states — sought recovery for harms that children who used the platforms allegedly experienced as a result, including addiction, depression, and self-harm. They also sought to recover costs allegedly incurred in responding to a purported youth mental health crisis allegedly attributable to Meta’s social media platforms. Meta reported the individual and consolidated lawsuits to its insurers, which in turn agreed to provide a defense to Meta for certain individual lawsuits subject to a reservation of rights but otherwise largely denied coverage.
The insurers commenced coverage litigation on November 1, 2024, seeking a declaration that they owed no duty to defend Meta against the claims brought by the individual plaintiffs, the school district plaintiffs, the local government plaintiffs, and the state plaintiffs. Within the year, the parties brought cross-motions: (1) Meta sought to stay the coverage litigation pending resolution of the underlying actions or to dismiss the coverage litigation due to the insurers’ alleged “concession” of potential coverage by agreeing to defend certain underlying suits; and (2) the insurers sought partial summary judgment declaring the absence of a duty to defend the underlying actions.
The court denied Meta’s motion to stay, concluding that the coverage litigation could be resolved without making factual determinations that overlapped with the underlying litigation. The court further denied Meta’s motion to dismiss because the insurers had pleaded a reasonably conceivable basis for a declaration of no coverage — namely, that allegations of Meta’s intentional design of platform features were strictly deliberate. Unpersuaded by Meta’s argument that the inclusion of negligence-based causes of action in the underlying litigation inherently triggers at least a potential for the “accident” coverage contemplated by the insurers’ general liability policies, the court noted that under California law, it is the underlying conduct — not mere labels attached to the factual conduct alleged — that determines whether there is a duty to defend. The court agreed with the insurers that the underlying litigation alleged strictly deliberate conduct relating to Meta’s intentional design of various platform features and that the existence of a negligence cause of action did not transform Meta’s allegedly intentional acts into accidental acts so as to create a duty to defend.
Turning to the insurers’ motion, the court focused on whether the underlying litigation alleged harm caused by an “accident.” Under the general liability policies at issue, the duty to defend was triggered by suits seeking damages for injury caused by an “occurrence.” Meta and the insurers agreed that “occurrence” meant an “accident,” which, under governing California law, courts have defined as “an unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown cause.” Importantly, the Delaware court found that, under California law, “an accident does not occur when the insured performs a deliberate act unless some additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage.”
In determining whether the injuries alleged in the underlying social media cases were caused by accidental acts or omissions or exclusively deliberate conduct, the court applied a two-step inquiry: (1) do the underlying complaints allege anything other than deliberate conduct, and if they do not, (2) do the underlying complaints nevertheless allege any additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happenings that may have caused the plaintiffs’ injuries?
The insurers argued that the underlying complaints exclusively alleged intentional conduct related to Meta’s “deliberate design choices.” The insurers emphasized that the inquiry in this regard is not whether Meta subjectively intended to cause injury. According to the insurers, the court could conclude that Meta’s conduct, as alleged in the underlying complaints, was exclusively deliberate based solely on allegations that Meta acted knowingly, deliberately, and/or intentionally when it designed and implemented the platform features that allegedly resulted in the plaintiffs’ harms, even if Meta may not have subjectively intended the harms themselves. As to the second inquiry, the insurers argued that there were no allegations of an intervening “unexpected, independent happening” between Meta’s intentional design choices and the resulting harm; rather, the insurers argued that in the underlying complaints, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta’s design choices were specifically intended to increase engagement, rendering the resulting harms foreseeable instead of fortuitous events (i.e., accidents).
In response, Meta argued that the insurers’ motion should be denied because the presence of some form of negligence claims and/or allegations in the underlying litigation is sufficient to trigger the insurers’ defense obligations. Meta further argued that even if the design choices were intentional, the resulting harms were still “unforeseen happenings,” construing “accident” to mean that either the act or its consequences are unintended or unforeseen.
Ultimately, the court agreed with the insurers and determined that the answer to both questions was “no.” As to the first inquiry, the court concluded that the underlying complaints alleged injuries and/or other harms arising out of solely deliberate conduct. Notably, the court found the presence of negligence-based allegations or causes of action alone insufficient to trigger the duty to defend, especially when the negligence claim arises from factual allegations of intentional conduct. The court held that the strictly deliberate conduct was evident from Meta’s design choices and agreed with the insurers that whether Meta specifically intended to cause harm was irrelevant. The court found that Meta’s alleged conduct can only be characterized as “deliberate” because Meta allegedly performed the acts intentionally and with knowledge of the intended outcome — increased youth engagement. Meta’s alleged design choices and intent to maximize platform usage were therefore deemed “purposeful” and “deliberate” for coverage purposes. As to the second inquiry, the court again agreed with the insurers that children allegedly becoming addicted to social media platforms because the platforms were deliberately designed to maximize youth engagement did not create or constitute the sort of “additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening” that may otherwise involve an “accident.”
Accordingly, because the underlying social media litigation alleged exclusively deliberate conduct, with no allegations of accidents or unforeseen happenings, the court granted the insurers’ motion for partial summary judgment declaring that they have no duty to defend Meta.
