Cannabis clients rarely fit into a single class of business. A single operator might cultivate, process, retail, and deliver under one roof, and a policy built for just one of those functions tends to miss the rest. Lee Woodruff, Vice President of Jencap's Cannabis Practice, sees the same gaps surface again and again when he compares what a client's policy assumes with what's actually happening on-site.
Two issues come up on nearly every cannabis property account Woodruff reviews, and neither one has anything to do with what's growing on site.
Claims against cannabis operators have grown steadily since state legalization began, and they tend to fall into a few patterns: contamination from pesticides or microbial issues, potency labeling that doesn’t match the package, failure to warn about effects, and marketing claims that overstate a product’s purity.
A 2025 executive order directing the Attorney General to expedite marijuana rescheduling has not yet produced a final rule to broadly reclassify marijuana to Schedule III, but legal analysts note that any reclassification would likely weaken the federal illegality defenses operators have relied on, while wider distribution raises the stakes of any labeling miss.
Edibles carry their own risk here, since dosing errors and mislabeled potency are frequent concerns in product liability disputes. Ask clients about their third-party testing protocols. That question separates a program built for cannabis from a generic policy with a cannabis endorsement bolted on.
Limited banking access means many cannabis operators move more cash than a typical retailer, and inventory often moves under strict in-state chain-of-custody rules.
Cannabis is unique on the GL side because these accounts don't use standard ISO forms. Plus, the policies that do exist carry more exclusionary wording than you'd find on a typical retailer or manufacturer. Keep an eye out for the following:
Because availability and pricing still vary widely by state, there are a few things worth flagging at intake. Cultivation and trim work often get misclassified under generic agricultural class codes. Standard post-incident drug testing protocols get complicated fast when the product itself is cannabis. And repetitive trim and processing work carries real ergonomic risk that’s easy to overlook next to the more obvious hazards.
Cash-heavy operations are a theft target, and most cannabis businesses now run point-of-sale and seed-to-sale tracking systems holding sensitive data. A crime policy that only covers employee dishonesty misses the external theft exposure. A generic cyber policy may not address the compliance requirements tied to state tracking systems either. Both lines deserve a second look.
Run through this checklist at intake or renewal. Any checked box is a reason to call in a cannabis-specialized wholesaler.
Most operations need some combination of property, general liability, product liability, auto, workers’ comp, and crime and cyber coverage, tailored to the stages of the business they run.
Cannabis businesses often combine cultivation, processing, retail, and transport in ways that don’t map to a single class of business, and many standard forms carry cannabis-specific exclusions.
As soon as a client’s operations span more than one stage of the cannabis supply chain, or when cash handling, multi-state operations, or lab testing enters the picture.
Jencap has spent years placing cannabis risk that doesn’t fit a standard form. With market access built for cultivators, processors, dispensaries, testing labs, and transport operators, Lee Woodruff and the rest of Jencap's cannabis team can help you find where a client's current program has a hole before a claim finds it for you. Reach out to review an account.