Insurance Companies Resist Paying Talc Claims

Insurance companies are pushing back on covering J&J's massive talc-related liabilities, leading to complex disputes over policy language and exclusions

Wednesday, October 15, 2025 - As talcum powder lawsuits continue to mount, insurance companies are increasingly refusing to pay claims tied to J&J's legal settlements and defense costs. At issue is whether decades-old liability policies cover billions in alleged damages arising from the company's talc products. Many insurers argue that policy exclusions absolve them of responsibility. A talcum powder lawyer said these denials have triggered a wave of litigation not between plaintiffs and J&J, but between J&J and its insurers, who once promised protection against product liability. The disputes involve dozens of insurers across multiple jurisdictions, creating one of the most complex coverage battles in corporate history. The company contends that its policies were designed to protect it against precisely these kinds of product liability claims. In contrast, insurers argue that talc-related cancers were foreseeable or excluded under public health risk provisions. These legal fights are playing out as the company faces tens of thousands of baby powder lawsuit claims and billions in potential settlements. The financial stakes are so large that some insurers have set aside their own reserves while courts determine which side must shoulder the burden. Observers note that these cases could redefine how legacy policies are interpreted in mass tort contexts where science and liability have evolved over time.

According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, coverage disputes over long-tail liabilities, claims emerging years or decades after a product was sold, are among the most expensive and time-consuming cases in modern insurance law. In the J&J talc litigation, courts must determine whether historical insurance contracts issued in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s apply to modern scientific findings and massive multidistrict litigation settlements. Many of these old policies lack explicit language about carcinogenicity or product exposure duration, leaving judges to decide whether coverage extends to illnesses discovered long after use. Legal experts explain that some insurers are relying on pollution and contamination exclusions that were never meant for consumer products, while others invoke "occurrence limits," arguing that each case does not constitute a new insured event. Meanwhile, the company argues that its talc products were marketed as safe and therefore fall squarely within general liability coverage. Regulators and policy analysts say that the outcome of these disputes could influence how insurers write future policies for consumer goods manufacturers. If courts compel insurers to pay, it may lead to stricter underwriting and higher premiums for the entire personal care sector. Conversely, if insurers prevail, corporations may find that their decades-old insurance assets are worth far less than they believed, shifting more financial risk back onto shareholders.

The clash between insurers and corporate policyholders over talc coverage will likely set precedents reaching far beyond J&J. As courts weigh policy intent against evolving science, future companies could face higher thresholds to prove coverage in any health-related mass tort. This may accelerate the trend of corporations creating self-insured reserves or specialized litigation funds to manage long-term product risks. Investors, too, will be watching closely, as insurance recoveries can determine how much of a company's balance sheet survives large-scale liability events. Ultimately, the battles now unfolding in insurance courtrooms are about more than talc--they are about who pays when decades of consumer exposure turn into generational public health costs.