Cannabis: Florida's Growing Insurance Industry?
On Oct. 16, the Florida Supreme Court accepted review of a case that involves a key component of Florida's regulatory structure for medical marijuana licenses. Gov. Ron DeSantis' office asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, which would address the frameworks of Florida's vertical integration requirement for cannabis companies.
November 13, 2019 at 09:53 AM
4 minute read
The cannabis industry is budding as some sales projections are expected to exceed $1.7 billion by 2022. Licenses to sell medical marijuana in Florida repeatedly fetch a price tag of over $40 million. The catch: Florida tightly regulates the amount of licenses it issues for the sale of medical marijuana. Therefore, companies that desire to enter the market resort to purchasing the license from an existing license holder. However, that may soon change.
On Oct. 16, the Florida Supreme Court accepted review of a case that involves a key component of Florida's regulatory structure for medical marijuana licenses. Gov. Ron DeSantis' office asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, which would address the frameworks of Florida's vertical integration requirement for cannabis companies.
As of 2019, Florida issued just 14 licenses to produce and sell medical cannabis in the state of Florida. These licenses, also known as a MMTC license (formerly a dispensing organization license), allow the license holder, to own and operate up to 25 to 30 individual—dispensary locations and deliver product directly to customers' homes. Florida law tightly regulates the licensed medical marijuana treatment clinics (MMTCs). Specifically, Florida statute requires each MMTC license holder to be vertically integrated, which requires the license holder to control all aspects of the operations from "seed to sale." In short, the statute requires a medical marijuana treatment clinic to cultivate, process, transport and dispense marijuana for medical use. However, the recent ruling from the Florida's First District Court of Appeal determined that the vertical integration requirement conflicted with the Florida Constitution. Art. X Section 29(b)(5). The Florida Constitution permits MMTCs to cultivate, process, transport, sell, distribute, dispense or administer marijuana for medical use. Since the statutory language conflicts with constitutional amendment regarding vertical integration, the statutory cap on the number of facilities is subsequently rendered unreasonable.
Despite the billion-dollar market projections, insurance premiums remain a significant expense for the cannabis industry. Vertical integration necessitates that companies insure all aspects of the supply chain. Insuring the cannabis industry from seed to sale encompasses a variety of risk. First-party risks include fire, theft, product recall, workers' compensation and equipment breakdown. Third party risks may include products liability and DUI. Thus, the gamut of insurance cannabis companies must consider encompasses property insurance, commercial automobile insurance, workers' compensation, products liability, business interruption, government actions, inland marine (cargo), professional liability and commercial general liability, among others.
A potential ruling against seed-to-sale requirements may have indirect impacts on the cannabis insurance market. Instead of requiring a MMTC to take on all the responsibilities in the supply chain, a MMTC could just focus on a particular aspect of the supply chain. In essence, MMTCs that are not vertically integrated could focus on the cultivation and processing rather than the administration and distribution aspects of the industry, which lowers the exposure to risk. Subsequently, more insurance carriers may consider the cannabis market if MMTCs are not vertically integrated.
The Supreme Court's potential ruling against vertical integration could also result in the long-term increase of MMTC Licenses issued by the state. If the vertical integration is upheld as unconstitutional, Florida will have to reconsider its current cap on MMTCs. Further, if MMTCs may focus on only one aspect of the cannabis industry such a processing or dispensing, it may require the issuance of additional MMTC licenses to service the other facets of the cannabis industry. An increase in the MMTC licenses issued would inevitably lead to an increased need for cannabis insurance products.
For now, the cannabis industry awaits the outcome of Florida Department of Health Office of Medical Marijuana Use v. Florigrown, in the Florida Supreme Court. The ruling may greatly impact Florida's cannabis industry as well as the cannabis insurance market. In the near future, cannabis insurance in Florida's billion-dollar industry could become a true cash crop for insurance providers.
Nicolas R. Bixler is a Fort Lauderdale attorney with the law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson where he provides strategic counsel for a wide range of civil litigation cases, focusing on insurance-related matters. He may be reached at [email protected].
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250