.

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

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Thought Leadership

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims

In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Up the Gist of the Action Doctrine

The gist of the action doctrine has been a hot topic in legal malpractice cases in Pennsylvania over the last several years.  Beginning in 2014, the Pennsylvania courts applied the gist of the action doctrine to professional liability actions, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014).  In Bruno, the court applied the gist of the action doctrine to a professional negligence claim, and found that a negligence claim was not barred simply because the parties were in a contractual relationship where the gist of the claim sounded in negligence. Thereafter, courts in Pennsylvania applied the gist of the action doctrine to breach of contract claims as well, finding that where the allegations sounded in negligence, a plaintiff could not recast a negligence claim as one for breach of contract. This was important because of the distinction between statutes of limitations: negligence claims must be brought within two (2) years, while breach of contract claims can be brought within four (4) years.  Then, last year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the gist of the action doctrine does not apply to breach of contract claims as seen through two opinions. These opinions were Swatt v. Nottingham Village, 342 A.3d 23 (Pa. Super. 2025) and Poteat v. Asteak, et al., 350 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. 2025). That is, the gist of the action doctrine can bar a negligence claim but it cannot bar a breach of contract claim.  This month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the petition for allowance of appeal in Poteat.  The Supreme Court phrased the issue for consideration as follows: Whether the Superior Court majority’s holding conflicts with this Court’s holding in Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co., 160 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), as well as Superior Court opinions that applied Bruno, and departs from almost 200 years of controlling precedent that distinguishes between causes of action in contract and tort based upon the nature of the duty that was allegedly breached? Attorneys on both sides of legal malpractice matters no doubt look forward to clarification on these issues from our Supreme Court.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial