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
Thought Leadership
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.
