Cannabis coverage conundrum: Was this property claim doomed?

One recent case raises several important insurance issues for policyholders and previews likely battlegrounds for future cannabis coverage disputes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld dismissal of KVG Properties Inc.’s claims under a first-party property policy arising from damage to KVG’s office spaces due to tenants’ use of cannabis-growing operations. [K.V.G. Properties, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance Co. (No. 17-2421, 6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018)]

We have been tracking the KVG case closely and previously reported on KVG’s initial appeal and Westfield’s retort on why the district court correctly dismissed the claims. Although there was no coverage for KVG under the particular facts of this case, the Sixth Circuit’s decision raises several important insurance issues for policyholders to consider and previews likely battlegrounds for future cannabis coverage disputes, many of which are precipitated by the variances in federal and state cannabis law.

Related: First Cannabis Business Owners Policy approved in California

Sixth Circuit Decision

Although Westfield denied coverage under three exclusions, the Sixth Circuit resolved the issue and affirmed based solely on the criminal acts exclusion. At the outset, the court noted that the first step of its coverage analysis — whether KVG’s claim falls within the policy’s insuring agreement — “requires little discussion” because the insuring agreement was written broadly to cover all “Risks of Direct Physical Loss.” In fact, the court noted “one would struggle to think of damage not covered by this language,” but that the harder question is whether the particular risks at issue are excluded.

Westfield argued that the tenants’ conduct was criminal under either state or federal law and that those acts caused KVG’s loss. The Sixth Circuit agreed and affirmed the district court’s dismissal based on this exclusion.

As was the case on summary judgment, the central issue on appeal was whether the tenants committed a “criminal act” under the policy. Cultivating cannabis is a federal crime but is protected in certain situations under Michigan law. Although the court recognized that, under different circumstances, KVG may have had a “strong federalism argument” in favor of coverage, there was no coverage for the particular claims at issue because no reasonable jury could find that KVG’s tenants complied with Michigan law.

Even though it remained Westfield’s burden to prove all facts necessary to demonstrate that the criminal acts exclusion applied, the court looked no further than KVG’s own admissions in the proceedings below that its tenants “illegally grew marijuana.” Likewise, it was undisputed that federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided the KVG property “as part of a criminal investigation,” which suggested that the tenants were not in compliance with Michigan law. Federal guidance documents state that such raids occur only when officials believe the targets are not in “clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws.” These facts were sufficient to support Westfield’s prima facie burden of proving that application of the criminal acts exclusion applied.

In closing, the court rejected KVG’s position that the criminal acts exclusion applied only when the tenants had been “convicted” of a crime. The court explained that the Westfield policy says criminal “act,” not “crime” or “conviction,” and “[a] fugitive from justice may properly be deemed a criminal by the person he harms, even though the State cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” Predicting that the Michigan Supreme Court would not read such an “onerous” conviction requirement into a “standard” insurance contract, the Sixth Circuit declined to do so in KVG’s appeal.

Related: New workers’ comp. program announced for cannabis industry in Calif.

Takeaways

Related: Blazing trails: Calif. commish to lead national cannabis insurance committee

Michael Levine is a partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP in Washington, D.C. He practices nationally focusing on insurance recovery, counseling, and litigation. He can be reached at (202) 955-1857 or mlevine@huntonak.com. Geoffrey Fehling is an associate at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP in Washington, D.C., who focuses on complex civil litigation matters, with an emphasis on insurance coverage litigation and counseling. He can be reached at (202) 955-1944 or gfehling@huntonak.com.

This article first appeared on the Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Recovery blog and is republished here with the authors’ permission. Mike and Geoff are regular contributors to the blog.