Are you trying to claim that what you are asserting is not a huge guess? The only thing that you stated was fact, was the fact that it depends on what the insurance policy says, and I agreed with you on that part.
Yes, I agree that he might have needed a rider, and said so previously.
Some exclusions could apply regardless of the state. Many potential exclusions could not. That is why so many insurance companies have pulled out of some states with some types of insurance, because they don't want to live with that state's regulations.
Trying to get insurance for marijuana growing operations is difficult even in states where marijuana has been legalized. This has less to do with state insurance regulations and more to do with the federal laws on marijuana.
I don't know what regulations the state legislators have put in, in states where marijuana is legal. Its possible that if state regulations are silent about hydroponic systems that it might allow an insurance company to exclude hydroponic systems. However, I strongly disagree with anyone who states that federal law has anything to do with it.
Just because somethings is not illegal in the state does not mean that businesses may safely ignore federal law, as I think you well know. There are a number of things that the feds make illegal that many states do not, and the fact that the state does not make it illegal does not give a free pass to ignore the federal law. So if the policy precludes coverage for illegal activity conducted on the property, that would include illegal acts under both state AND federal law. Unless Oregon law expressly prohibits an insurer from including marijuana activities in its prohibition of illegal activity the insurer is on solid ground to deny the coverage. That is why marijuana growers really need to pay attention to their coverage and often need policies that are specifically designed for them in mind.
Why? On what exactly do you base your disagreement?
Then I am afraid you are missing the point. Federal law of course matters. How is it that you think that federal law would be completely irrelevant here? Federal law would matter in any other instance. What makes marijuana so different that federal law would not matter?
Under the US constitution some things are under federal jurisdiction and some things are reserved for the states. I realize that there is some disagreement in general as to whether state or federal law trumps as far as marijuana is concerned, but I think that the fact that the federal government so far, has neither the democrats nor the republicans willing to attempt to override state decisions to legalize marijuana is pretty compelling evidence that its a state matter.
You are off-base on this, LdiJ.
When has that ever stopped her? Oh right! Never.
No I am not off base. Study up on some of the issues where states have quietly "revolted" against the feds, and the feds eventually had to give in.
You may not believe me and you may not believe quincy...but Taxing Matters is a site-verified attorney. The fact that you still feel the need to argue your incorrect position, while not unexpected, still boggles the mind.