Insurance Industry Draws Parallels to Opioid Cases as Gaming Lawsuits Target Addictive Features
Parents filed multiple lawsuits in 2024 against video game manufacturers over claims that loot boxes and microtransactions caused addiction-related harm to minors. The lawsuits target specific game mechanics, including randomized reward systems that require real-money purchases. Commercial General Liability insurers evaluate whether psychological addiction qualifies as “bodily injury” under existing policies. At the same time, gaming companies pursue multiple coverage types to protect against claims that could reach millions in damages.
5 Key Points
- Delaware Supreme Court rejected Rite Aid’s CGL coverage claims for addiction in October 2024.
- Parents report children spending thousands on loot boxes, leading to diagnosed gaming disorders.
- Commercial General Liability policies face new tests defining gaming addiction as “bodily injury.”
- Directors and Officers policies protected North Carolina Mutual from 100+ addiction lawsuits.
- Video game manufacturers layer four distinct insurance types for comprehensive protection.
Insurance Providers Debate Addiction Coverage
Commercial General Liability insurers in 2024 struggled to classify gaming addiction under traditional bodily injury definitions. ACE American Insurance Company successfully argued in the Delaware Supreme Court that addiction claims centered on business practices fall outside CGL coverage, even when physical harm occurs. The ruling forced gaming companies to examine policy language defining “bodily injury” – while some policies explicitly exclude mental injuries, others leave room for addiction-related claims. Insurance providers now require gaming companies to prove their reward systems, and microtransactions did not intentionally foster addictive behavior.
Multiple Insurance Types Create Defense Layers
Video game manufacturers responded to coverage challenges by building protection through four distinct policy types. Commercial General Liability policies provide the first defense layer, covering potential bodily injury claims if courts accept gaming addiction as physical harm. Product Liability insurance addresses damage from game features like loot boxes, while Errors and Omissions policies protect against claims that developers failed to implement adequate player safeguards. Directors and Officers’ insurance rounds out coverage by shielding executives from allegations they ignored addiction risks or could not manage game design responsibly.
Court Precedents Shape Coverage Strategy
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina established key coverage precedents in North Carolina Mutual Whole Company v. Federal Insurance Company. The court rejected two common insurer defenses – the contractual liability exclusion failed because addiction claims stem from everyday law duties rather than contracts. In contrast, the professional services exclusion faltered because insurers could not prove companies charged specific fees for compliance duties. Gaming companies now cite this ruling to counter similar exclusions in their own coverage disputes.
Intentional Acts Create Coverage Barriers
Insurance providers in 2024 increasingly cited intentional acts exclusions to deny gaming addiction coverage. The California Court of Appeal supported this approach in Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that known addiction risks preclude coverage under accident-based policies. However, the U.S. District Court for South Carolina provided gaming companies a defense strategy in Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. JM Smith Corp. The court ruled that unforeseeable harms from intentional business practices may still trigger coverage, allowing game developers to argue that while engagement features were intentional, addiction represents an unexpected outcome.
On this page:
