Home Insurance Coverage Update – Be Careful of the Pot Growing in Your Basement
Posted On:
|
Author:
|
|
Home Insurance Coverage Update – Be Careful of the Pot Growing in Your Basement
March 10, 2015
By: John R. Liber, Partner, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan, a Legal Professional Association, Cleveland, Ohio
For most people, there would not be much concern about their house catching fire because one’s husband was performing a procedure known as “butane extraction” on marijuana he was legally growing in the basement. In the case of Casey McDermott, this is exactly what happened. But the challenges they faced due to the damage done by the fire was nothing compared to the fight they encountered with their homeowner’s insurance company, who declined the claim.
In the recent case of Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. McDermott, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling in favor of the insurance company’s rejection of coverage. Although the marijuana operation was perfectly legal (McDermott’s husband was a licensed medical marijuana patient who operated an approved, high-tech laboratory), the court held that it constituted a material deviation from the routine uses of the premises. Since, under normal circumstances, a homeowner’s insurance company would not anticipate that a residential basement would be used as a marijuana laboratory where natural gas – fired experimentation would be performed, the insurance company was not required to cover the loss. The court specifically observed that the McDermotts’ marijuana lab was not related to common activities such as growing indoor plants or smoking.
This is somewhat of a departure from the evolving law in Ohio for enforcement and interpretation of insurance policies. Previously, it was well settled that unless there was an ambiguity in the terms of the policy, the plain meaning of the words in the policy are given effect. If a material term can be reasonably considered to have more than one meaning, the language is construed in favor of coverage for the policy holder. With the McDermott decision, the court has departed from this standard, and instead looked into the mind of the insurance company to determine if it ever meant to provide coverage for a particular casualty.
The moral of the story: (1) if damage to your property is caused by anything somewhat out of the norm, be prepared for the insurance company to decline coverage and force you to fight in court for the coverage for which you paid; and (2) if you engage in any activity that may be considered remotely unconventional, you should contact your insurance company and verify coverage. On this point, the word of your sales agent is not enough. Get it in writing, preferably from a coverage adjuster at the home office, or an attorney such as the capable lawyers at Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan, who can review the policy and the applicable law, and advise if you have a coverage issue.
Many people spend a lifetime paying expensive premiums for insurance for everything from homeowners to auto and disability coverage, only to find that when they reach a ripe old age and they no longer need it, they never made a claim. Don’t expect your insurance company to send you a big fat check for the decades of premiums you paid unnecessarily.
For those who are faced with a claim, be prepared for a challenging experience for anything that does not fit squarely within the insurance companies’ set framework for allowable claims and damages. Many cases like McDermott demonstrate extreme examples that do not fit the norm. But one must wonder if it would have made any difference if Mr. McDermott were growing hydroponic vegetables when a heat lamp caught fire and burned the house down as opposed to his perfectly legal marijuana garden.
If you have any questions, or would like to have an in-depth review of your insurance coverage, feel free to contact John at 216-255-5431, or by e-mail; jliber@tddlaw.com.
Recent Articles
Categories
- Arbitration
- Best Lawyers in America
- Business Law
- Business Litigation
- Chardon Attorneys
- Chardon Lawyers
- Charity
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Cleveland Attorneys
- Cleveland Lawyers
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Court Cases
- Criminal Law
- Defense Attorneys
- Defense Verdicts
- Divorce Attorney
- Divorce Law
- Divorce Lawyers
- Divorce Process
- Employer Liability
- Employment Lawyers
- Estate Planning
- Family Law
- Family Law Attorney
- FMLA Eligibility
- Insurance Coverage
- Insurance Law
- Lawsuits
- Legal Advice
- Mineral Rights Lawyer
- News
- Ohio Oil and Gas
- Ohio Super Lawyers
- Oil & Gas Law
- Oil & Gas Update
- Oil and Gas Attorneys
- Personal Injury
- Personal Injury Lawyers
- Practice News
- Real Estate Lawyers
- Trial Lawyers
- Workers Compensation
- Zoning Lawyers
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- September 2020
- May 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- May 2019
- June 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- October 2009
- June 2009
- May 2006