Properly insuring cannabis businesses, and companies that are involved in the industry but that are not themselves regulated under state cannabis law, can be a tricky undertaking. I recently wrote an article for the Oregon State Bar Cannabis Law Section about things to watch out for when advising clients in this space about insurance. (You can find the full article on our website, here, or in pdf form here.)
Key points are the following: 1) the insurance industry is marketing “specialty” policies for cannabis businesses that may exclude the most common risks, particularly regarding products liability; 2) non-regulated businesses involved in the cannabis economy (vendors, commercial landlords) should question whether their “general” insurance policies will respond if there is a loss caused by or involving cannabis products or activities. The insurance industry is increasingly make explicit that “mainstream” coverage does not apply to cannabis risks, and has at times taken an aggressive approach to denying such claims, even where policies are unclear.
The article goes into some detail about the legal issues, so we are not posting it as a blog piece. Happy reading!
The GDPR, the European Union’s Global Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), took effect on May 25. As 
In a decision with important implications for “long-tail” environmental contamination coverage claims in the Northwest, 
Businesses of all sizes are now commonly purchasing “cyber insurance” coverage to protect against financial losses from data security incidents. But these policies—which are not written on standardized forms—can vary widely in what they cover. Here are some common gaps in coverage to watch out for.
Most businesses, and particularly retailers, require that their suppliers name the retailer as an “additional insured” on the supplier’s general liability policy. This means that if a customer is injured because of the supplier’s product, and the customer sues the retailer, the supplier’s insurance will have to pay to defend the retailer in the lawsuit. Demanding to be added as an “additional insured” is a standard part of contractual risk-transfer in retail, as in most businesses. But two recent rulings demonstrate that “additional insured” coverage may not be worth much – if the supplier’s insurer is outside of the U.S. Companies can try to avoid this problem by revising their contract language.
An endorsement that has become common in general contractors’ insurance policies can function as a trap for both the policyholder and defense counsel. The “Contractors Special Conditions” endorsement requires that the policyholder must have written contracts with each subcontractor that it uses on a project, and that those agreements must meet certain requirements. If there is a loss involving those subcontractors, and if contract conditions were not met, the insurer may deny coverage. The problem, of course, is that if the policyholder does not read the policy before the loss, and didn’t get the right contracts in place, there may be no way to “cure” the problem. And defense counsel may be put in a bind as well when they are asked to report to the insurer.
We are honored to represent United Policyholders (a non-profit advocacy organization for policyholders) on an issue of great concern to many of our commercial clients, and in particular those in the construction industry: the scope of the so-called “absolute pollution exclusion.” Our amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit for UP on the issue was filed on November 2 and is available 
Many Northwest businesses are being impacted by the wildfires close to home, and also by the hurricanes that have or will hit Texas, Florida and other Gulf states. Can commercial insurance help to mitigate losses from these natural disasters? In many cases, yes.