• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Cannabis

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

LdiJ

Senior Member
In essence, you're guessing.
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.

I am not guessing that the insurance industry is state regulated. I am not guessing that an insurance policy would have to follow state regulations. I am not guessing that marijuana is legal in quite a few states now.
 


quincy

Senior Member
Rot6669 said the equipment was destroyed in a “house” fire. If the equipment was commercial equipment, it is possible his homeowners policy would not cover it. Rot6669 would have wanted a special insurance rider.

Although there are state insurance regulations, the insurance companies are (often/generally) national companies. Their policies (e.g., exclusions) are (often/generally) national policies. The exclusions can apply regardless of state.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Rot6669 said the equipment was destroyed in a “house” fire. If the equipment was commercial equipment, it is possible his homeowners policy would not cover it. Rot6669 would have wanted a special insurance rider.
Yes, I agree that he might have needed a rider, and said so previously.

Although there are state insurance regulations, the insurance companies are (often/generally) national companies. Their policies (e.g., exclusions) are (often/generally) national policies. The exclusions can apply regardless of state.
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.
 

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
Again LdiJ,

Do you have reason to believe there is a state that has a law that requires insurance companies to cover equipment used in the cultivation of marijuana? And more specifically do you think there is a law that requires a homeowner's policy to do so?
 

quincy

Senior Member
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.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Again LdiJ,

Do you have reason to believe there is a state that has a law that requires insurance companies to cover equipment used in the cultivation of marijuana? And more specifically do you think there is a law that requires a homeowner's policy to do so?
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.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
I think that it would run afoul of state regulations in a state where marijuana is legal. Once again, insurance is a state regulated industry subject to state regulations, not federal ones.
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.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
However, I strongly disagree with anyone who states that federal law has anything to do with it.
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?
 

quincy

Senior Member
Standard insurance policies will not cover activities/products that are not FDA approved, either.

In Michigan, where marijuana is legal, specific marijuana insurance is needed.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
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.

Federal law does not trump those things that are reserved for the states. The feds often propose legislation to the states that most or all of them adopt (sometimes with incentives to do so) but those laws are not federal laws. They are laws the feds proposed and the states adopted.
 

quincy

Senior Member
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.

Federal law does not trump those things that are reserved for the states. The feds often propose legislation to the states that most or all of them adopt (sometimes with incentives to do so) but those laws are not federal laws. They are laws the feds proposed and the states adopted.
You are off-base on this, LdiJ.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
You are off-base on this, LdiJ.
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.

The first one that I specifically remember is when the states rejected the federal mandate for speed limits not to exceed 55 mph after dealing with it for many years.

Gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two of the more recent ones.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
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.

Federal law does not trump those things that are reserved for the states. The feds often propose legislation to the states that most or all of them adopt (sometimes with incentives to do so) but those laws are not federal laws. They are laws the feds proposed and the states adopted.
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.

The fact of the matter still remains that you have presented no evidence that there is a state law that would prohibit insurance companies from excluding coverage for activities that violate federal law, even if they don't violate state law.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top