Cannabis News of Note:
Bloomberg Law: Cannabis Product Class Action Draws Insurance Coverage Lawsuit (paywalled, text below)
Cabot Wealth Network: 4 Key Takeaways from the Cannabis Sector’s Earnings Season
Green State: Hemp fallout and rescheduling uncertainty dominate D.C. cannabis conference
Marijuana Moment: New GOP-Led Bill In Congress Would Reverse Hemp THC Ban That Trump Signed Into Law
Virginia Mercury: After years of vetoes, Virginia poised to launch adult-use cannabis market
—
Bloomberg Law: Cannabis Product Class Action Draws Insurance Coverage Lawsuit
Maria Clark, Nov. 17, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC
A Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. carrier is suing a MariMed Inc. unit, seeking a ruling that it owes no coverage for a proposed class action alleging the Massachusetts cannabis company misrepresented its products.
Scottsdale Insurance Co. has no duty to defend or indemnify Mari Holdings IL LLC because the underlying lawsuit doesn’t allege “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or “personal and advertising injury” as defined in its policies, the insurer said in a complaint filed Nov. 14 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The underlying lawsuit alleges Mari Holdings violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by selling “THC-infused” products that allegedly contained only 1% to 2% THC, far less than advertised.
MariMed, which operates cannabis cultivation, production, and dispensary facilities across the US, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
**The underlying suit**
Scottsdale issued commercial general liability policies to Mari Holdings for periods including the alleged misconduct.
The insurer argues the class action complaint doesn’t trigger coverage under the policies’ insuring agreements, which cover “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or “personal and advertising injury” caused by an “occurrence” or “offense.”
“None of the allegations in the underlying complaint can reasonably be interpreted as alleging ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage,’” Scottsdale said.
The complaint also doesn’t allege “personal and advertising injury,” which the policy defines as injury from false advertising or misrepresentation in advertising, but only if it arises out of the insured’s goods or products, Scottsdale said.
Even if coverage were triggered, Scottsdale argues several exclusions apply, including those for the recording of oral or written publications that violate a person’s right of privacy, and for knowing violations of rights of another.
The insurer seeks a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Mari Holdings in the class action.
**Coverage dispute**
Scottsdale issued commercial general liability policies to Mari Holdings for periods including the alleged misconduct.
The insurer argues the class action complaint doesn’t trigger coverage under the policies’ insuring agreements, which cover “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or “personal and advertising injury” caused by an “occurrence” or “offense.”
“None of the allegations in the underlying complaint can reasonably be interpreted as alleging ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage,’” Scottsdale said.
The complaint also doesn’t allege “personal and advertising injury,” which the policy defines as injury from false advertising or misrepresentation in advertising, but only if it arises out of the insured’s goods or products, Scottsdale said.
Even if coverage were triggered, Scottsdale argues several exclusions apply, including those for the recording of oral or written publications that violate a person’s right of privacy, and for knowing violations of rights of another.
The insurer seeks a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Mari Holdings in the class action.
**The case is Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Mari Holdings IL LLC, N.D. Ill., No. 1:25-cv-07890, filed 11/14/25.**