Cannabis News Protecting Patients Access to Medical Marijuana
  Insurers Weigh Marijuana Payments
Posted by FoM on July 30, 2001 at 14:28:28 PT
By Justin Pritchard, Associated Press Writer 
Source: Associated Press 

medical A growing number of medical marijuana users whose backyard pot plants were stolen by thieves or commandeered by police have succeeded in getting insurance companies to reimburse them for the loss.

The dollar amounts aren't huge: The pot is supposed to keep one person healthy not sold on the street, where high-grade marijuana is more expensive than gold. However, one insurer paid $12,375 to a man who lost three pounds of pot to an armed intruder.

But just as medical marijuana was beginning to gain acceptance as an insurable good, a recent ruling by the Supreme Court in an Oakland, Calif., case has cast doubt on the future of such payments.

The court ruled in May that clubs dispensing medical marijuana according to state laws could not use a "medical necessity" defense against federal anti-drug laws, which do not allow for medical marijuana.

The court didn't resolve the question of whether individual Americans have a right to marijuana as a pain remedy.

Even so, State Farm will deny future claims for medical marijuana, and the other insurers will give them renewed scrutiny, spokesmen said.

"It's clearly stated in the homeowners' policy that we will not pay for illegal activities," said Lonny Haskins, the State Farm spokesman.

In September 1999, Robert DeArkland of Fair Oaks became the first person known to be reimbursed for marijuana through household insurance. He received $6,500 from CGU California Insurance for 13 marijuana plants seized from his garage by sheriffs' deputies.

Insurers generally agree that marijuana becomes a homeowner's personal property under state law when the policyholder has permission to grow or possess it for medical reasons. That's possible in the eight states with state laws allowing medical marijuana -- California, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon and Washington.

Even though these laws are in conflict with federal law barring use or possession of marijuana, major insurance companies have made at least a dozen such reimbursements, according to a series of interviews by The Associated Press. Most of the claims have been filed in California.

Medical marijuana advocates say insurers are treating the court ruling as political cover, not legal precedent.

"If an insurance company is looking for an excuse to save a few dollars and deny a claim, I suppose they can use the Supreme Court case as an excuse," says Keith Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch II
NORML Media & Communications
Source: Associated Press
Author: Justin Pritchard, Associated Press Writer
Published: July 30, 2001
Copyright: 2001 Associated Press

Related Articles & Web Site:

NORML
http://www.norml.org/

Insurance Companies Find Themselves Paying
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6257.shtml

Insuring Medical Marijuana
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6030.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #2 posted by dddd on July 30, 2001 at 17:13:36 PT
yer darn right
the insurance companies will no longer cover weed,,,I was
suprized they did in the first place.,,,and the SC ruling is
the perfect excuse......dddd


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by Sudaca on July 30, 2001 at 16:18:13 PT
definition
"However, one insurer paid $12,375 to a man who lost three pounds of pot to an armed intruder"

A cop?

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on July 30, 2001 at 14:28:28