.

Cannabis Law

Our attorneys offer a full suite of legal services to assist our clients in navigating the complex and evolving landscape of the cannabis industry. Specifically, our firm’s understanding of the unique challenges of the industry allows us to defend lawsuits brought against cannabis industry defendants as well as evaluate coverage and defend lawsuits on behalf of industry insurers, agents and MGAs.

Insurance Coverage

We are familiar with the underwriting goals of industry insurers and MGAs, the policies drafted to reflect those goals and the unique risks inherent in the developing industry. We are experienced in analyzing coverage under cannabis policies as well as defending both breach of contract and bad faith lawsuits filed by insureds under cannabis policies.

We analyze coverage and defend claims under Commercial Property, including associated business interruption and cannabis CGL policies as well as cannabis related Management Liability/Professional Liability, Cyber and other claims made policies. The coverages analyzed include:

  • Property & Inland Marine: Fire, theft, water damage, and transport losses
  • Crop/Equipment: Claims involving mechanical failures or crop value loss
  • Cannabis Stock & Crime: Theft, employee dishonesty, and inventory loss
  • Duty to defend/coverage analysis under CGL or professional liability/claims made policies

Casualty

We deliver targeted, insurance-focused representation across a wide range of casualty claims, relevant to cannabis operations. We defend insureds for every general liability exposure, including:

  • CGL: Dispensary slip-and-falls, solvent explosions, and the myriad of accidental injuries associated with agricultural and commercial premises risks
  • Product Liability: Contamination, mislabeling, or accidental ingestion
  • Auto Liability: Accidents involving cannabis product delivery or transport
  • "Gram-Shop": Liability for providing cannabis to intoxicated patrons
  • Retail Accessory Risks: Injuries from broken glassware or accessories
  • Landlord Liability: Issues arising from leasing to cannabis businesses
  • Delivery Services: Claims tied to third-party logistics or on-demand delivery models

Management Liability/Employment

The cannabis industry is particularly susceptible to management liability and employment-related lawsuits due to its evolving legal and operational landscape. Common areas of litigation within these areas of law include:

  • Claims against company leaders: Stemming from their managerial choices
  • Wage and hour disputes: Misclassification of employees (exempt vs. non-exempt), failure to pay overtime, inaccurate timekeeping, and denial of breaks are common issues leading to lawsuits.
  • Discrimination and harassment: Employees bringing claims under Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws, alleging harassment and discrimination based on sex, race, and other protected characteristics.
  • Wrongful termination: Employees may claim wrongful termination based on various factors, including protesting discriminatory practices or exercising their rights related to cannabis use where protected by state law.
  • Retaliation: Employees who report workplace violations or engage in protected activities are also filing retaliation claims.

Professional Liability

Defending professional liability claims in the cannabis industry involves a combination of a history and experience defending a myriad of professional liability claims irrespective of the industry as well as an understanding of the unique risks for professionals servicing the cannabis industry. Our professional liability attorneys bring decades of experience defending professionals across many industries and are able to bring that experience to assist cannabis professionals including:

  • growers and cultivators
  • testing labs
  • consultants
  • accountants
  • architects
  • directors and officers
  • lawyers
  • MGAs/ independent adjusters
  • agents
  • software providers

Cyber / Data Breach

Cannabis operators must comply with rigorous cybersecurity standards to safeguard sensitive data and uphold both state and federal regulatory and privacy mandates. Because the cannabis supply chain relies heavily on digital tracking systems, cannabis-related businesses must deploy specialized software tools that secure inventory management and ensure accurate, compliant reporting, such as track and trace software that creates additional cyber vulnerabilities. Our Cyber team is available to quickly mobilize to mitigate the damage due to ransomware attacks and data-breaches.

Workers’ Compensation

Defending workers’ compensation claims in the cannabis industry requires navigating an evolving legal landscape. Our team focuses exclusively on representing insurers and employers in workplace injury and occupational hazard claims, while also offering proactive risk management strategies to help reduce exposure.

Cannabis Industry-Specific Risks and Exposures

  • Cultivation: Pesticide exposure, ergonomic strain; machinery accidents; electrical hazards
  • Manufacturing: Chemical exposure from extraction processes; industrial accidents involving heavy machinery
  • Retail and Distribution: Slip-and-falls; repetitive motion injuries; ergonomic strain; driver injuries

As the cannabis industry grows and regulations shift, our focused approach helps clients confidently manage workers’ compensation claims and minimize liability in this high-risk sector.

Health Care

While many states have legalized medical use of cannabis, it remains illegal under federal law. This dichotomy creates significant legal challenges for health care providers. We leverage our experience in helping clients navigate health care regulations such as HIPAA laws and patient privacy protections and apply it to the uniquely complex environment surrounding the cannabis industry. We defend clients against civil claims, including medical malpractice, and can assist health care providers – including physicians, dispensaries and clinics – to understand the evolving standards of care for cannabis as a therapeutic option, which can differ significantly from conventional treatments. This can include appropriate patient evaluations, dosage recommendations and documentation requirements within the framework of state medical cannabis programs. We are also well-equipped to address challenges related to informed consent.

Our Cannabis Law Practice serves clients from our 19 offices located throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Florida, Ohio and Connecticut, and in neighboring jurisdictions in Maryland, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Results

View all

Defense Verdict on Behalf of Hospital and Emergency Department Doctors

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of one of the Philadelphia region’s largest hospitals and two of its Emergency Department physicians after a six-day jury trial in a complex and extremely emotional case involving the death of 7-year-old child. Allegations of negligence surrounded the failure to admit and perform a urine drug screen on an 18-year-old who presented high on synthetic marijuana or K2. We argued that the doctors appropriately performed numerous exams, tested and monitored the patient until he achieved clinical sobriety. The patient was discharged, then 22 hours later smoked more K2 and within two hours strangled his 7-year-old sister to death. 

Thought Leadership

View all

New Jersey Law Journal

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

May 21, 2026

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

Legal Update for Cannabis Law

Marijuana Reclassified: Preliminary Impacts on Homeowners Coverage Issues

April 27, 2026

On April 23, 2026, the United States Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration announced an order reclassifying certain marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. This move represents the most significant shift in federal cannabis policy in decades. While much of the public discussion thus far has focused on the tax and criminal implications of the change, there are more nuanced questions for insurers – particularly in the context of homeowners policies and the enforceability of exclusions for “controlled dangerous substances.” The Regulatory Shift For decades, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. That classification, on a tier reserved for substances with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, aligned marijuana with substances like heroin, LSD and peyote. The April 2026 order altered that framework by recognizing that FDA-approved products containing marijuana and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license will be reclassified in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. This move indicates at least some level of federal recognition that state-licensed marijuana has accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse.  Importantly, the change is limited. The reclassification does not federally legalize marijuana, and recreational cannabis generally remains a Schedule I substance. This bifurcated treatment of medical versus recreational marijuana use will likely become central to future discussions, including insurance coverage litigation. Implications for Homeowners Policies Most standard homeowners policies contain exclusions for losses “arising out of” the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer or possession of controlled substances, as defined by the Federal act. Notably, the standard “controlled substances” exclusion in policies specifically references cocaine, LSD, marijuana and narcotic drugs. The rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule III raises the key question of how or whether the “controlled substances” exclusion will continue to apply. At this point, the answer to this question appears to be that the provision will continue to preclude coverage for losses arising out of marijuana claims, since Schedule III substances remain “controlled substances” under federal law and marijuana remains listed, by name, in the exclusion. To be clear, the reclassification does not remove marijuana from the statutory framework; it merely places marijuana in a less restrictive category of the Controlled Substances Act. Moving forward, insurers will likely argue that the plain language of the exclusion means that the provision continues to apply. For their part, policyholders may begin to push back on that interpretation, particularly in jurisdictions like Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where legalized cannabis regimes are well-established. The argument will be that conduct authorized by state law, and now partially recognized at the federal level, should not trigger exclusions designed to address criminal or inherently hazardous activity. Ultimately, any coverage disputes will likely turn on traditional principles of policy interpretation: plain meaning, ambiguity, and the reasonable expectations of the insured. Courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, both of which have robust bodies of insurance coverage law, will play an important role in shaping how these disputes are resolved. Conclusion The move of FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and medicinal marijuana products subject to a qualifying state-issued license to Schedule III is an important step in federal drug policy, but its immediate impact on homeowners insurance is limited. Simply put, marijuana remains a controlled substance, such that standard exclusions to homeowners policies should continue to apply. Moving forward, the most significant effects of the change in classification will emerge in close cases, particularly in states like New Jersey where recreational and medical marijuana is legal (at least to some degree) under state law. For now, the change creates more questions than answers. Those questions, which are likely to be centered on policy language, legality, and causation, are likely to shape the next wave of coverage litigation in this area.

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.