Maybe, but insurance is regulated at the state level rather than the federal level, so that would be a little odd to exclude something that was legal on the state level, just because its not legal on the federal level. Its more likely that it would be excluded because it needed a rider.Agreed - I was just pointing it out to the OP because, even if other exclusions don't apply, there may be an exclusion for personal property used for illegal activities.
“Those directly and tangentially involved in the industry need insurance that addresses the specific needs of growers, retailers, distributors, property owners and lab researchers,” the A.M. Best report says. “However, despite growing demand from both producers and retailers alike, many carriers are reluctant to embrace the industry, owing to its classification as a Schedule I drug in the eyes of the U.S. federal government, under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970.”
Because marijuana is not legal at the federal level, some carriers see marijuana insurance as a “debatable” move, A.M. Best said.
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.Are you implying that a prohibition on equipment used for illegal purposes would somehow run afoul of state regulations?