.

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

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky

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.

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. 

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

News

Stacey R. Gorin Installed as President of the Burlington County Bar Association

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial