Judge Probes Meta’s Bid to Resolve Insurance Case in California

A California federal judge appeared skeptical of Meta Platforms Inc.'s position that a dispute over insurance coverage for social media litigation should proceed in her court instead of Delaware state court, where insurers first filed their suit.

Meta’s argument that insurers had no right to file suit “seems to make no logical sense,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the US District of the Northern District of California said during a Wednesday hearing. Because Meta is incorporated in Delaware, there is no other avenue for it to oppose remand if the forum-defendant rule is found to apply, Gonzalez Rogers said.

Meta sued units of Chubb Ltd. and Hartford Insurance Group Inc. along with several other carriers in December 2024, nearly two months after Hartford first filed suit against the social media giant in Delaware state court. Following a months-long forum fight, and after being removed to Delaware federal court by Meta, Hartford’s suit was transferred to the underlying multidistrict litigation in the California federal court, where the social media giant stands accused of getting kids hooked on its platforms.

Hartford and Chubb’s request to remand the original suit to the Delaware Superior Court is still pending, and the carriers have asked Gonzalez Rogers to dismiss Meta’s case. Meta is seeking to put the insurance coverage dispute—including the issue of remand—on hold until the underlying cases have been resolved.

During the Wednesday hearing, Gonzalez Rogers heard arguments on remanding Hartford’s suit, staying the coverage dispute, and dismissing Meta’s suit.

The forum-defendant rule, which bars removal if a defendant is a citizen of the state where an action was brought, doesn’t apply because Meta was improperly joined, Covington & Burling LLP’s Heather Habes, who represents Meta, told the court. Meta was the natural plaintiff in the coverage dispute, and Hartford had no right to sue the social media company because it hasn’t yet made defense cost payments and therefore hasn’t suffered any losses, Habes added.

But that would suggest insurers could never file declaratory judgment actions, and that every time they did, courts would have to flip the case to make the policyholder the plaintiff, Matthew Antonelli of Ruggeri Parks Weinberg LLP, who represents Hartford, said in response.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed that seemed to be what Habes was suggesting. But there was no authority to support that theory, and in fact, insurers are frequently plaintiffs, she said.

The judge appeared slightly more open, however, to Meta’s arguments about preserving judicial economy, pointing to the number of underlying cases and her own knowledge of those cases.

Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP’s Blair Kaminsky, counsel for Chubb, said that proceedings on the duty to defend, regardless of forum, would likely rely on the use of exemplar complaints rather than requiring review of the approximately 1,400 cases included in the MDL. Ensuing guidance from the court would allow the parties to resolve coverage issues as to other underlying cases, Kaminsky told the judge.

Gonzalez Rogers also seemed unlikely to delay a ruling on remand. MDL judges are advised to decide remand motions and there would be no reason not to, she said. Additionally, the Delaware court could apply California law if needed to decide Meta’s motions to stay or dismiss Hartford’s suit, Gonzalez Rogers said.

Meta is also represented by Berger McDermott LLP. Hartford is also represented by Bayard PA. Chubb is also represented by Clyde & Co LLP and Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC.

The cases are Instagram LLC v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., N.D. Cal., No. 4:24-cv-09500, hearing on insurer’s motion to dismiss 4/23/25 and In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. 4:22-md-03047, further case management conference 4/23/25.