Cannabis Insurance Claims:
How They Get Paid, Denied, and Disputed
Cannabis claims are decided by exclusions far more often than by limits. The policy language that settles them — growing crops, contraband, dishonest or criminal acts, damage to your own product, and recall — was written for other industries and applies to this one with unusual force, because most of the market is still federally prohibited. This guide covers the exclusions courts have actually enforced, the recall-versus-liability distinction operators most often get wrong, how to file, and what changes when your carrier is non-admitted.
- The April 2026 rescheduling did not cover most of the industry. The DEA final rule published in the Federal Register on 28 April 2026 (document 2026-08176) moved FDA-approved marijuana products and state medical marijuana licensed products to Schedule III. Adult-use product was not in that rule. The separate, broader proposal to reschedule marijuana generally went to a hearing the DEA scheduled to commence 29 June 2026 and to conclude not later than 15 July 2026, and the agency's rescheduling page records no final determination as of this review. Marijuana generally — adult-use included — therefore remains in Schedule I, and claims arising from adult-use operations are still being adjusted against a federally prohibited substance.
- Living plants and harvested product are two different coverage questions. In Green Earth Wellness Center v. Atain Specialty Insurance the Colorado federal court held the "growing crops" exclusion unambiguous and barred a claim of roughly $200,000 for mother plants and clones — while letting an approximately $40,000 claim for harvested buds and flowers proceed, because it found the "contraband" exclusion ambiguous on those facts.
- Your general liability policy will not pay to recall your product. The Texas Department of Insurance states plainly that CGL policies "will not pay the cost to recall faulty products, work, or impaired property," and that recall coverage is added by endorsement for additional premium. Recall expense and product liability are separate purchases.
- A non-admitted policy changes what happens if the carrier fails. Most cannabis risk is written in the surplus lines market, and surplus lines policies are not backed by state guaranty funds. North Carolina's insurance department requires brokers to notify insureds in writing that on insolvency "losses will not be paid by any State insurance guaranty or solvency fund."
- A criminal conviction is not required for a criminality exclusion to bite. In K.V.G. Properties v. Westfield Insurance the Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of a landlord's roughly $500,000 tenant-damage claim under a dishonest-or-criminal-acts exclusion, reasoning that the policy says "criminal act," not "crime" or "criminal conviction."
What makes a cannabis insurance claim different
A cannabis claim is adjusted against a backdrop no other licensed industry has: the product at the centre of the loss may still be federally prohibited. That single fact is what gives ordinary policy exclusions — written decades ago for farms, warehouses and landlords — the power to decide outcomes that limits and deductibles would decide anywhere else.
Federal law moved in April 2026, but less than the headlines suggested. The DEA final rule published in the Federal Register on 28 April 2026 (document 2026-08176) placed both FDA-approved medical products containing marijuana and medical marijuana products regulated under a state medical marijuana licence into Schedule III. On the same day the agency noticed a hearing on the separate, broader 2024 proposal (89 FR 44597) to reschedule marijuana generally, and proposed withdrawing the prior administrative hearing process. The DEA states that hearing was "scheduled to commence on June 29, 2026" and "will conclude not later than July 15, 2026"; its rescheduling page records no recommended decision and no final determination, so as of this review marijuana generally — adult-use included — is still in Schedule I. The practical result for claims is a split market: a state-licensed medical operator and an adult-use operator in the same building can have the same loss and a materially different coverage argument.
The second structural difference is who writes the risk. Almost all of it sits in the excess and surplus lines market, which we cover in detail in our cannabis insurance carrier market guide and in the broader cannabis business insurance guide. Non-admitted carriers are not required to use state-approved forms, so two policies sold as "cannabis property" can carry different exclusions, different valuation bases and different reporting conditions. There is no standard cannabis form to reason from. If you want the concept behind that in one place, our explainer on admitted versus excess and surplus lines insurance sets out the difference — and the section below on whether your carrier is admitted covers what it changes at claim time.
Regulators are watching the same gap. The NAIC's Cannabis Insurance (C) Working Group, which sits under the Property and Casualty Insurance (C) Committee, carries 2026 charges that include supporting regulators' efforts to "encourage the development of admitted market insurers" so as "to ensure coverage adequacy in states where cannabis, including hemp, is legal," and to "explore potential sources of constraint to coverage limits and availability of cannabis insurance products." Read as a claims signal, that is an acknowledgement from the regulatory side that capacity and form quality in this class are not yet where they are elsewhere. What each state's licence rule requires an operator to carry is set out in our guide to cannabis insurance requirements by state.
The five exclusions that decide cannabis claims
Five standard exclusions do most of the work in this class. None of them was drafted with cannabis in mind, and two of them have been litigated to published federal decisions on cannabis facts. Reading them before a loss is the single highest-value hour an operator can spend on their insurance programme.
1. Growing crops — the exclusion that separates plants from product
The leading case is Green Earth Wellness Center, LLC v. Atain Specialty Insurance Co., 163 F. Supp. 3d 821 (D. Colo. 2016), decided on 17 February 2016. Smoke and ash from the Waldo Canyon fire damaged a Colorado grower's operation. The policy excluded "Land (including land on which the property is located), water, growing crops or lawns." The court held that term unambiguous and read it to cover "any body of plants tended for their agricultural yield, at least until they are harvested" — indoors or outdoors — which barred the grower's claim of roughly $200,000 for mother plants and clones. Pre-policy documents in which the insurer had said "Coverage does not extent to growing or standing plants" supported the reading.
2. Contraband — ambiguous, and therefore arguable
The same policy excluded "Contraband, or property in the course of illegal transportation or trade," and the insurer invoked it against the harvested inventory. Here the court went the other way, finding the exclusion ambiguous in light of the gap between federal law on the books and federal enforcement in practice, and pointing to extrinsic evidence that the parties had intended to cover saleable inventory — the insurer's own pre-policy correspondence had refused coverage only for growing plants, and its application asked for an inventory value. The approximately $40,000 claim for harvested buds and flowers survived summary judgment and went to trial. The court also declined the insurer's invitation to void the policy on public-policy grounds.
The practical lesson from the two halves of one case: the stage of the plant's life at the moment of loss can be worth more than any endorsement on the policy. Schedule living plants, work in process and finished inventory as distinct categories, and confirm in writing which the policy covers.
3. Dishonest or criminal acts — no conviction needed
In K.V.G. Properties, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance Co., No. 17-2421 (6th Cir. 21 August 2018), a commercial landlord leased space for office and light-industrial use; DEA agents raided it in October 2015 and found tenants growing marijuana. Before arrest the tenants removed walls, cut holes in the roof, altered ductwork and wrecked the HVAC systems, with repairs estimated at about $500,000. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial under an exclusion for loss "caused by or resulting from" any "[d]ishonest or criminal act by you, any of your partners, members, officers, managers." The court rejected the argument that the exclusion required a conviction, reasoning that "[t]he policy says 'criminal act,' not 'crime' or 'criminal conviction,'" and found no reasonable jury could conclude the tenants had complied with Michigan's medical marijuana law given the landlord's own eviction pleadings alleging an illegal grow.
One limb of that exclusion deserves separate attention, because the court did not decide it. The same provision also reaches "anyone to whom you entrust the property for any purpose" — and in footnote 2 the court observed that "[t]he list of roles does not include tenants, and there is some question about whether this exclusion should apply to someone who obtains 'entrustment' by false pretenses." Because the insured had "expressly chosen not to discuss this element or argue it in favor of reversal," the court concluded: "we express no opinion on this issue." K.V.G. is therefore authority on the criminal-act element and on nothing about entrustment.
The drafting risk this describes is not limited to landlords, but it is a risk to check in your own wording rather than a settled rule. Whether an entrustment clause reaches a sub-tenant, a contract manufacturer or a transport vendor is exactly the question K.V.G. left open, so read the clause and ask how your carrier applies it rather than assuming either answer. If you lease space to or from a cannabis operator, the landlord exposure covered in our pillar guide is the place to start, and commercial property coverage is where the question gets answered.
4. Damage to your product
General liability forms exclude damage to your own product arising out of the product. The Texas Department of Insurance states the rule in its general liability guidance: "CGL policies don't cover property damage to your product arising out of the product or any part of the product." Spoiled, contaminated or failed-testing inventory is therefore a first-party property and stock question, not a general liability one — and in cannabis, where a failed pesticide or microbial test can condemn a whole batch, that distinction is frequently where a claim ends.
5. Recall of products, work or impaired property
This one has a section of its own below, because it is the gap operators are most often surprised by.
| Exclusion | What it removes | What to do before a loss |
|---|---|---|
| Growing crops | Living plants, as a category — held unambiguous in Green Earth | Buy a crop or living-plant form if you cultivate; never assume stock covers plants |
| Contraband / illegal trade | Potentially all product; held ambiguous in Green Earth on those facts | Get written confirmation that licensed inventory is covered, and keep the underwriting file |
| Dishonest or criminal acts | Loss caused by a dishonest or criminal act of yours or your managers. The clause also names "anyone to whom you entrust the property" — a limb K.V.G. expressly left undecided | Diligence sub-tenants and vendors; document licence compliance continuously |
| Damage to your product | Your own product, on the liability policy | Insure inventory on the property side with an agreed valuation basis |
| Recall of products, work or impaired property | The cost of withdrawing product from the market | Add recall expense by endorsement or buy a standalone recall policy |
Product recall is not product liability
Product liability pays third parties who are injured or whose property is damaged by your product. Product recall pays you for the cost of getting that product back off the shelf. They are two different purchases, and buying the first does not get you the second. In cannabis this is the most expensive misunderstanding in the class, because a state-mandated recall is a routine regulatory event rather than a rare catastrophe.
The authority is not subtle. The Texas Department of Insurance's general liability guidance carries a heading titled "Recall of Products, Work, or Impaired Property" and states that "CGL policies will not pay the cost to recall faulty products, work, or impaired property." It then notes that "this coverage may be added to the policy by endorsement for an additional premium charge." A commercial general liability policy, in the same guidance, "protects business owners against claims of liability for bodily injury, property damage" — which is the third-party half of the problem and only the third-party half.
What a recall actually costs an operator
The line items are predictable even where the amounts are not: notifying the regulator and the public, retrieving and transporting product from dispensaries and distributors, destruction and disposal under state track-and-trace rules, the credit or refund owed to wholesale customers, the value of the destroyed inventory itself, and the income lost while a production line or a licence is paused. Only the last two are plausibly first-party property and business interruption questions. The retrieval and destruction costs are recall-expense costs, and the third-party injury claims that may follow are product liability claims. One loss event, three different policies — which is why the exclusion audit is the core of this guide.
The mechanics of a recall claim are not cannabis-specific, and the sequencing lessons transfer directly from food: our guide to product recall and contamination insurance walks through how these policies trigger, what a "contamination" definition has to say to be useful, and why notice timing drives recovery. Cannabis adds two wrinkles — the destruction must satisfy state track-and-trace, and the product may be federally prohibited at the moment of disposal — but the claim architecture is the same.
If you move product between sites or across a state, note that cargo and transit losses sit on a different form again; cargo and inland marine coverage is where in-transit inventory belongs, and standard commercial auto physical damage will not stand in for it.
How to file a cannabis insurance claim, step by step
Report first, document continuously, and do not dispose of anything until you have written permission — from both the carrier and your state regulator. In this class the two obligations can conflict, and resolving that conflict in writing before you act is what protects the claim.
Step 1 — Give notice immediately, in writing, to the named carrier
Surplus lines policies frequently carry prompt-notice conditions and a specific notice address that is not your broker's office. Send notice to the address the policy names, in writing, on the day you discover the loss, and copy your broker. Late notice is one of the few denial grounds that is entirely self-inflicted.
Step 2 — Preserve the scene and the data
Photograph and video everything before anything moves. Export your track-and-trace records for the affected lots on the day of loss, not later — these systems are the state's record of what you had, and they are the single most persuasive proof of inventory an adjuster in this class will see. Capture environmental monitoring logs, security camera footage before it rolls over, maintenance records for any failed equipment, and the batch testing results.
Step 3 — Separate your loss into coverage buckets before the adjuster does
Living plants, work in process, finished inventory, building and build-out, equipment, third-party injury, recall expense and lost income are different claims that may sit on different forms and carry different sublimits. Green Earth is the clearest reason to do this work yourself: one fire loss split into roughly $200,000 of growing plants, which an unambiguous exclusion barred outright, and about $40,000 of harvested product, which survived to trial. Same event, opposite outcomes, decided by the category each item fell into. Operators who present one undifferentiated number invite the adjuster to apply the most restrictive reading to all of it. What those separate forms typically cost is covered in our cannabis insurance cost guide.
Step 4 — Get written sign-off before destruction or disposal
State rules will often require destruction of condemned product on a timetable. The carrier will want to inspect. Ask for written agreement on an inspection date and a documented destruction protocol, and if the regulator's deadline cannot wait, say so in writing and record the carrier's response. A destroyed lot with no inspection and no paper trail is an uphill valuation argument.
Step 5 — Document the licence position
Because criminality and regulatory-compliance language is live in this class, assemble the licence file early: current licences, inspection history, any open notices of violation, and the compliance status of every tenant, vendor and contract manufacturer involved in the loss. In K.V.G. the denial of roughly $500,000 in repair cost turned in part on the insured's own eviction pleadings, which alleged an illegal grow. Your own documents are evidence, and they are read against you as readily as for you.
Step 6 — Engage a broker and, where warranted, counsel
A broker's job during a claim is to hold the carrier to the form that was sold, which in a non-admitted market means knowing which manuscript wording you actually bought. Where a denial rests on an exclusion rather than a number, coverage counsel is usually the right next call. The claims-handling questions worth asking a broker before you need the answer are the ones about notice addresses, manuscript wording and who adjusts the loss.
Expect the timeline to run longer than a comparable loss in a conventional class. Valuation disputes in cannabis routinely require an inventory expert, specialty adjusters are a small pool, and in a reported claim the carrier may raise its reservation of rights on several of the exclusions covered above at once. Plan the cash-flow consequences accordingly, and read your business interruption waiting period before you count on it.
Why the outcome depends on whether your carrier is admitted
Cannabis is overwhelmingly a surplus lines class, and a surplus lines claim has a different safety net, a different complaint path and a different form from an admitted one. Three consequences matter at claim time, and the first is the one nobody mentions at binding.
There is no guaranty fund behind a surplus lines policy
State insurance guaranty associations pay the claims of insolvent licensed insurers, and membership is the mechanism: the guaranty-fund system's own consumer guidance explains that coverage "is limited to licensed insurers," because "[t]he licensed insurers in a state are the members of the guaranty funds that, in turn, pay insolvency-related assessments" — and therefore that "[n]on-admitted or unlicensed insurance products are not covered," "nor are surplus lines." North Carolina's Department of Insurance states the consequence directly: "There is no protection for surplus lines policies," because the guaranty association covers only licensed insurers, and claims may go unpaid if a surplus lines insurer runs into financial difficulty. The same page records that brokers must notify the insured in writing that if the insurer becomes insolvent, "losses will not be paid by any State insurance guaranty or solvency fund." If you have ever signed a surplus lines disclosure without reading it, that is the sentence you signed.
The practical answer is not to avoid the surplus lines market — for most cannabis risks there is no admitted alternative — but to treat carrier financial strength as a coverage term rather than a footnote. Ask for the AM Best rating and the surplus position of the carrier, not just the programme name, and ask it again at every renewal.
The form is not standard, so the exclusions are not either
Non-admitted carriers are not bound to file state-approved forms. Two cannabis property policies can define "stock," value inventory, schedule living plants and condition coverage on security warranties in entirely different ways. This is why the exclusion audit above has to be run against your policy rather than against a form library, and why comparing two cannabis quotes on premium alone is close to meaningless. The admitted-versus-surplus-lines explainer linked earlier covers the regulatory mechanics; the claims consequence is simply that the burden of knowing your wording shifts onto you and your broker.
The complaint and remedy path is narrower
Where an admitted carrier's claim conduct can be taken to the state department of insurance under its market-conduct authority, a non-admitted carrier sits largely outside that framework, and in some programmes the policy will also carry arbitration or choice-of-law provisions that move a dispute out of your home courts. Read the conditions section, not just the coverage section, and know the dispute mechanism before a dispute exists. Where limits are the issue rather than coverage, umbrella and excess layers sit above the primary and have their own notice conditions that are easy to miss.
A final note on the lines that are not usually surplus: employee injury is generally handled through workers' compensation, which is admitted and state-regulated in most jurisdictions, and vehicle liability through commercial auto. Those two claims are the most conventional part of a cannabis programme, and they are often the ones that run smoothest.
The denial reasons that come up most
Most cannabis denials are not exotic. They cluster into six grounds, and five of them are addressable before a loss rather than after one.
- Living plants were never covered. The Green Earth growing-crops holding is the clearest illustration available: an unambiguous exclusion barred roughly $200,000 of plant value on a policy the insured believed covered its grow. If you cultivate, confirm in writing which stage of the plant's life the policy reaches.
- Inventory was valued on the wrong basis. Wholesale cost, retail price and "selling price" valuation produce very different numbers on the same destroyed lot. The valuation clause, not the limit, decides the recovery. Agree it at binding.
- A security or protective-safeguards warranty was breached. Cannabis property policies commonly condition coverage on alarm, camera, vault and access-control requirements. An inoperative camera at the time of a theft is a conditions problem, and it is adjudicated independently of whether the theft occurred.
- Notice was late. See step 1 of the filing process above — written notice, on the day of discovery, to the address the policy names. This is the most preventable denial in the class.
- Recall costs were claimed on a liability policy. The Texas DOI language quoted above is what the adjuster will say back: a CGL "will not pay the cost to recall faulty products, work, or impaired property." The answer is the endorsement or a standalone policy, bought in advance.
- A compliance or criminality condition was triggered. K.V.G. establishes that a conviction is not needed for a criminal-acts exclusion to apply, and that an insured's own filings can be the evidence against it (it decided nothing about the clause's entrustment limb). Operating outside your licence conditions — or housing someone who is — is a coverage problem, not only a regulatory one.
One ground is genuinely not addressable in advance, and it belongs on the list for honesty's sake: a carrier can read a "contraband" or federal-illegality exclusion aggressively, and whether that argument succeeds depends on your state's contract law and your specific facts. Green Earth is a favourable data point on licensed inventory and expressly declined to follow Tracy v. USAA, but it is one district court applying Colorado law in 2016, not a national rule — and for adult-use operations, which the April 2026 order left in Schedule I, the underlying argument has not gone away.
The valuation clause nobody read until the vault was empty
A licensed operator came to us after a burglary claim settled for substantially less than the inventory had been worth to the business. The limit was adequate. The problem was two clauses working together: inventory was valued at cost rather than selling price, and the policy conditioned theft coverage on a safeguard schedule that the operator had partially outgrown after a build-out moved the vault. Neither point had been raised at the previous two renewals, and the operator had reasonably assumed that a higher limit meant a bigger recovery.
What changed the next placement was unglamorous: we rebuilt the schedule by stage — living plants, work in process, finished goods — priced a selling-price valuation basis on the finished-goods layer, and re-walked the safeguard warranty against the building as it actually stood. The premium went up. The gap that had cost real money closed. The lesson we take into every cannabis renewal since is that in this class the valuation clause and the conditions page deserve more attention than the limit.
Details anonymized and generalized to protect client confidentiality.
Frequently asked questions about cannabis insurance claims
Insurers do raise federal illegality, usually through a contraband or illegal-trade exclusion, and whether it works depends on your state's contract law and your facts. In Green Earth Wellness Center v. Atain Specialty Insurance the Colorado federal court found the contraband exclusion ambiguous as applied to a licensed grower's harvested inventory and let that claim proceed, declining to void the policy on public-policy grounds.
It is one district court applying Colorado law in 2016, not a national rule. The DEA's April 2026 order moved FDA-approved and state-medical-licensed marijuana products to Schedule III, but adult-use product was not in that rule, so the argument remains live for most of the market.
Not under a standard property form. A "growing crops" exclusion removes living plants as a category, and in Green Earth the court held that exclusion unambiguous and applied it to mother plants and clones grown indoors, barring a claim of roughly $200,000. Covering living plants requires a crop or living-plant form or a specific endorsement.
Harvested product is a separate question and is normally insured as stock. Confirm in writing which stage of the plant's life your policy reaches before a loss, not after.
No. The Texas Department of Insurance states that commercial general liability policies "will not pay the cost to recall faulty products, work, or impaired property," and that the coverage can be added by endorsement for an additional premium charge. Recall expense and product liability are separate purchases.
Product liability responds to third parties injured by your product. Recall coverage responds to your own cost of retrieving and destroying it. A state-mandated cannabis recall triggers the second, not the first.
Product liability is third-party coverage: it pays claims by people injured or whose property is damaged by your product. Product recall is first-party coverage: it pays your cost of notification, retrieval, transport, destruction and the resulting business interruption.
One contaminated batch can generate both, plus a stock loss on the property policy. That is three policies on one event, which is why the exclusion audit matters more in this class than the limit.
Yes. In K.V.G. Properties, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance Co. the Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of a landlord's roughly $500,000 claim for tenant damage under an exclusion for loss caused by a dishonest or criminal act by the insured or its managers, after DEA agents found tenants growing marijuana and the tenants wrecked the building before arrest.
Note what the court did not decide. The same exclusion also reaches "anyone to whom you entrust the property for any purpose," and in footnote 2 the court expressed no opinion on whether a tenant falls within that phrase, because the insured chose not to argue it. Diligence on tenants, sub-tenants and vendors is still worth doing, but the coverage effect of an entrustment clause is an open question to put to your broker, not a decided rule.
No. The Sixth Circuit in K.V.G. rejected exactly that argument, reasoning that the policy's words were "criminal act," not "crime" or "criminal conviction." The court relied on the federal raid and on the insured's own eviction pleadings alleging an illegal grow.
The practical consequence is that your own filings, notices and correspondence can become the evidence supporting a denial. Be deliberate about how compliance problems are described in writing.
No, where the policy is written in the surplus lines market — which most cannabis policies are. Guaranty-fund coverage is limited to licensed insurers, because licensed insurers are the funds' assessment-paying members, and the guaranty-fund system's own guidance states that non-admitted or unlicensed products are not covered, nor are surplus lines. North Carolina's Department of Insurance reaches the same conclusion: "There is no protection for surplus lines policies."
Surplus lines brokers must notify the insured in writing that on insolvency "losses will not be paid by any State insurance guaranty or solvency fund." Treat carrier financial strength as a coverage term and re-check it at every renewal — which is easier through an independent agent rather than a captive or direct channel, because only an independent broker can compare carriers across the non-admitted market.
As soon as you discover the loss, in writing, to the notice address the policy names. Surplus lines policies commonly carry prompt-notice conditions and a notice address that is not your broker's office, so sending it only to the broker is a risk.
Late notice is among the most preventable denial grounds in this class. Send notice the same day, copy your broker, and keep proof of delivery.
Not without written agreement if you can avoid it. State rules may require destruction on a fixed timetable while the carrier wants to inspect, so get written agreement on an inspection date and a documented destruction protocol, and record the carrier's response if the regulatory deadline cannot wait.
Export your track-and-trace records for the affected lots on the day of loss. Those records are the state's own account of what you held, and they are the strongest inventory proof an adjuster in this class will see.
Usually because of the valuation clause rather than the limit. Wholesale cost, retail price and selling-price valuation produce very different recoveries on the same destroyed lot, and the clause decides which applies.
Because non-admitted carriers are not required to use state-approved forms, valuation language varies between two policies both sold as cannabis property coverage. That is why comparing insurance quotes on premium alone is misleading in this class. Agree the basis at binding and re-read it at renewal.
Only for part of the market. The DEA final rule published on 28 April 2026 placed FDA-approved marijuana products and medical marijuana products regulated under a state medical marijuana licence into Schedule III. Adult-use product was not in that rule, so marijuana generally remains in Schedule I.
The broader proposal to reschedule marijuana generally went to a hearing the DEA scheduled to commence 29 June 2026 and to conclude not later than 15 July 2026, and the agency records no final determination as of this review. Until it is resolved, a medical operator and an adult-use operator with the same loss can have materially different coverage arguments.
You can always contact your state department of insurance, but the remedies available against a non-admitted carrier are narrower than against an admitted one, because surplus lines insurers sit largely outside the state market-conduct framework that governs licensed insurers.
Some surplus lines programmes also carry arbitration or choice-of-law provisions that move a dispute out of your home courts. Read the conditions section before a dispute exists, work through the questions to ask your insurance broker about claims handling, and involve coverage counsel where a denial rests on an exclusion rather than on a number.
Not sure which of your policies would respond to the loss you are worried about?
Ask about the exclusions, the recall gap, or what a non-admitted policy changes at claim time.
Talk through a current claim or a coverage concern
If you have a cannabis claim in progress, or you want the exclusions and valuation clauses in your current programme read before you need them, we will walk the policy with you. Start a quote or reach us directly.