Monsanto Co. has sued excess liability insurers affiliated with American International Group (AIG), seeking coverage for hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and bodily injury claims tied to legacy chemical products, including Roundup herbicide. The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.
According to the filing, Monsanto purchased AIG excess liability policies under its prior corporate structure to respond to property damage and personal injury claims arising from products manufactured by “Old Monsanto.” The complaint states that these policies were in effect from June 1967 to April 1986.
The underlying claims center on products containing polychlorinated biphenyls and glyphosate, the latter used in Roundup, the suit said. Although Old Monsanto allegedly manufactured the products and obtained the coverage, the present Monsanto entity is funding the defense and indemnity payments, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that most of the AIG insurers have raised numerous “meritless excuses and purported defenses” to deny coverage obligations. Monsanto contends in the complaint that the policies at issue contain no exclusions or other limitations that would bar coverage for these types of claims.
In late 2019, Monsanto launched a global settlement program to resolve glyphosate-related litigation and has paid more than $10 billion toward that settlement, according to the lawsuit. Despite those payments, the company continues to face substantial ongoing defense costs, with roughly 50,000 lawsuits still pending and the potential for thousands of additional cases.
The dispute unfolds against a broader backdrop of contested coverage involving AIG in US courts, including a recent Delaware Superior Court case over a representations and warranties insurance program for Hartree Partners.
In that matter, the court issued a memorandum opinion denying AIG Specialty Insurance Co.’s motion for summary judgment, keeping the excess carrier in the litigation due to unresolved factual questions on subrogation, mitigation and the scope of recoverable loss.
In that Delaware ruling, the judge also found that an underlying judgment based on one damages theory does not automatically cap an insured’s potential “Loss” where an alternative theory was raised but never decided, and cautioned that excess insurers cannot assume an award below their attachment point guarantees an early exit from coverage litigation.
