After reading an article this morning about the increase in auto accidents for the states that have legalized marijuana since 2012 I’m thinking if I was an underwriter I wouldn’t touch that risk. Maybe $1,000,000 limit with $1,000,000 premium.
What U/W risk exist for the Cannabis Party Bus for accidents? Wouldn’t it make sense for the policy to state liability would be excluded if the driver was operating while intoxicated?
He was speaking of policy exclusions, not individual driver exclusions. Similar to those that exclude coverage if the vehicle is stolen.
December 20, 2018 at 4:03 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron is right – I was referencing what is usually Part E in an Auto policy re: exclusions (i.e. intentional acts, unlawful purpose, etc)
December 14, 2018 at 3:13 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
10
How many products sold in the marketplace come with lengthy warnings and instructions? It has become a sad joke that people are warned with lengthy pamphlets about the most obvious dangers for something as simple and obvious as a ladder. Pharmaceutical warnings are a stand-up comedian’s dream. Litigation over natural exposures like mold and silica dust are so common that most insurance policies exclude them.
But not for pot. No warnings at all. If you think the lawyer/sharks aren’t circling this one, think again.
Sure dude. Please show me the wording from a recreational warning label that addresses all of the dangers, including a higher risk of mental illness, reduced motivation, loss of IQ, and danger to unborn children for pregnant women.
Not living under a rock It may not be worth your time responding to Craig – although that maybe why you haven’t posted a reply yet.
Craig originally argued there are “no warnings at all” but he just moved the goalposts to claim there ARE warnings, but “the warnings don’t list ALL of the dangers.”
So Craig: are you now in agreement that there ARE warnings on medical and recreational marijuana, but that those warnings are not comprehensive … or are you still going to argue there are “no warnings at all.”?
Please pick one argument since both cannot be true simultaneously.
Are there warnings about mental illness, possibility of addiction and loss of job/dropping out of school, possibility of loss of IQ? Nope.
And that leaves open a huge door for lawsuits under the “failure to warn” litigation that is rampant with food and pharmeceuticals.
Try to be honest and fair for once. Or man up and show me the warning that addresses these issues.
December 18, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Let’s take this slow….
Q1: Are there ANY warnings AT ALL on medical or recreational marijuana that’s sold legally (not purchased off the black market)?
This is a simple yes or no question. I hope you can answer it honestly.
December 18, 2018 at 6:15 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Rosenblatt: the king of ridiculous comments. Tell me again how pot consumers are aware of the dangers. You know, the same survey that found that only 20% of pot users thought pot was addictive. . . too funny.
Are there ANY warnings? By golly, yes. Do the stop all lawsuits, which is the issue of the article? Not even close.
Pot users know the dangers.
The Judicial Branch of the government prosecutes Federal crimes.
Pot warnings cover all dangers and lawyers will not take advantage of the lack of warnings.
1) It’s not my fault you can’t read a 4 question study properly. I spent 20+ posts trying to explain to you how to read it and you still didn’t get it. “You ain’t gonna learn what you don’t wanna know.”
2) I said the President can’t initiate an investigation. He can ask the FBI to investigate something, but he can’t force them do it.
3) I never said the warnings cover everything; I simply said there are warnings.
Got any non-trolling and non-disingenuous comments to make?
The President can only “ask” the FBI. Like your boss can only ask you to do something. Well, the President could fire the FBI director. He could fire the Attorney General.
And what you said was that the Judicial branch pursued Federal crimes. TOO funny that can’t admit you were wrong.
And your study DID show that only 20% of pot users believed addiction was possible. But ignore that truth. It is what you do.
Yes. You said there were warnings. But if they don’t stop all the lawsuits, what is the point? The article was about lawsuits, not some pathetic “don’t drive” warning.
Real character is when people admit they were wrong.
December 19, 2018 at 2:36 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
“Real character is when people admit they were wrong.”
Craig: But not for pot. No warnings at all.
Craig: Are there ANY warnings? By golly, yes
…waiting for you to admit you were wrong and not attempt another mental gymnastics routine.
December 20, 2018 at 10:52 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Mental gymnastics is spot on, Rosenblatt. He’s a phenom on the uneven bars!
December 18, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Steve Thompson says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
There are risks involved with many activities in life. Warning labels or not, it depends on how risk averse an individual or company is. I don’t skydive because of the risk yet many others are involved in the sport and enjoy it. I also don’t gamble because of the risk of financial loss, but many choose to do so. I don’t smoke cannabis but I did help facilitate oil for pain for my Cousin who was dying of cancer. Doctors remarked how remarkable it was that he got off opiates and didn’t have pain, even during chemo and close to his death from pancreatic cancer. He wasn’t high and was with us much more than is time on prescription pain meds. Some think the issue is black and white because of personal experience. I guess that’s true of me too where I’ve see some positive outcomes from cannabis.
I don’t form my opinions because of personal experience; my personal experience caused me to learn a lot about the subject that I didn’t know before. From experts in rehabilitation, mental health, physicians and from people who help people recover from addiction.
The AMA and the American Psychiatry Association have never endorsed legal recreational weed. The AMA has opposed it. I tend to think they have looked at the subject closely with objective, compassionate eyes.
Pot Warnings: “You could be subject to prosecution by the Judicial branch of the government. But you can’t get addicted, which is what you already believe anyway.”
Craig,
Didn’t you read the title of the article. Be warned about claiming your cannabis expertise there, buddy! Now you and cyber – that could be a different story.
Teaching a dog to dance: The article was about the potential for lawsuits against agents for claiming cannabis expertise when selling insurance. And how would that lawsuit arise? When the pot business got sued in a way not expected to be covered by either the agent or the insurance policy. And what might that be? A policy that does not cover failure to warn allegations. Or a policy that excludes them. Or a policy with low limits that didn’t contemplate class action suits from addicted or brain damaged or mentally ill consumers of the product. (I know, way too much logic for Captain Dark Helmet.)
Working on a cannabis party bus risk now. Thinking I should do loss control on this one myself.
After reading an article this morning about the increase in auto accidents for the states that have legalized marijuana since 2012 I’m thinking if I was an underwriter I wouldn’t touch that risk. Maybe $1,000,000 limit with $1,000,000 premium.
You have to think about your time and making a profit. Maybe Million and add on an agency fee of $20,000.
What U/W risk exist for the Cannabis Party Bus for accidents? Wouldn’t it make sense for the policy to state liability would be excluded if the driver was operating while intoxicated?
In Texas driver exclusions don’t always hold up in court. However, so far, Texas hasn’t embraced legalized marijuana.
He was speaking of policy exclusions, not individual driver exclusions. Similar to those that exclude coverage if the vehicle is stolen.
Ron is right – I was referencing what is usually Part E in an Auto policy re: exclusions (i.e. intentional acts, unlawful purpose, etc)
How many products sold in the marketplace come with lengthy warnings and instructions? It has become a sad joke that people are warned with lengthy pamphlets about the most obvious dangers for something as simple and obvious as a ladder. Pharmaceutical warnings are a stand-up comedian’s dream. Litigation over natural exposures like mold and silica dust are so common that most insurance policies exclude them.
But not for pot. No warnings at all. If you think the lawyer/sharks aren’t circling this one, think again.
marijuana – both medical and recreational – does in fact have warning labels
So you think the local pusher selling to teens tells them about the dangers of recreational pot? Stay under your rock.
Sure dude. Please show me the wording from a recreational warning label that addresses all of the dangers, including a higher risk of mental illness, reduced motivation, loss of IQ, and danger to unborn children for pregnant women.
Just post the exact wording.
Not living under a rock It may not be worth your time responding to Craig – although that maybe why you haven’t posted a reply yet.
Craig originally argued there are “no warnings at all” but he just moved the goalposts to claim there ARE warnings, but “the warnings don’t list ALL of the dangers.”
So Craig: are you now in agreement that there ARE warnings on medical and recreational marijuana, but that those warnings are not comprehensive … or are you still going to argue there are “no warnings at all.”?
Please pick one argument since both cannot be true simultaneously.
The issue is LAWSUITS, Rosnenblatt. Try to focus.
Are there warnings about mental illness, possibility of addiction and loss of job/dropping out of school, possibility of loss of IQ? Nope.
And that leaves open a huge door for lawsuits under the “failure to warn” litigation that is rampant with food and pharmeceuticals.
Try to be honest and fair for once. Or man up and show me the warning that addresses these issues.
Let’s take this slow….
Q1: Are there ANY warnings AT ALL on medical or recreational marijuana that’s sold legally (not purchased off the black market)?
This is a simple yes or no question. I hope you can answer it honestly.
Rosenblatt: the king of ridiculous comments. Tell me again how pot consumers are aware of the dangers. You know, the same survey that found that only 20% of pot users thought pot was addictive. . . too funny.
Are there ANY warnings? By golly, yes. Do the stop all lawsuits, which is the issue of the article? Not even close.
Rosenblatt: king of the off-point comments.
Thank you for admitting you were not being honest when you wrote “But not for pot. No warnings at all.”
Thanks for being dishonest as usual:
Pot users know the dangers.
The Judicial Branch of the government prosecutes Federal crimes.
Pot warnings cover all dangers and lawyers will not take advantage of the lack of warnings.
1) It’s not my fault you can’t read a 4 question study properly. I spent 20+ posts trying to explain to you how to read it and you still didn’t get it. “You ain’t gonna learn what you don’t wanna know.”
2) I said the President can’t initiate an investigation. He can ask the FBI to investigate something, but he can’t force them do it.
3) I never said the warnings cover everything; I simply said there are warnings.
Got any non-trolling and non-disingenuous comments to make?
HA HA HA HA HA!
The President can only “ask” the FBI. Like your boss can only ask you to do something. Well, the President could fire the FBI director. He could fire the Attorney General.
And what you said was that the Judicial branch pursued Federal crimes. TOO funny that can’t admit you were wrong.
And your study DID show that only 20% of pot users believed addiction was possible. But ignore that truth. It is what you do.
Yes. You said there were warnings. But if they don’t stop all the lawsuits, what is the point? The article was about lawsuits, not some pathetic “don’t drive” warning.
Real character is when people admit they were wrong.
“Real character is when people admit they were wrong.”
Craig: But not for pot. No warnings at all.
Craig: Are there ANY warnings? By golly, yes
…waiting for you to admit you were wrong and not attempt another mental gymnastics routine.
Mental gymnastics is spot on, Rosenblatt. He’s a phenom on the uneven bars!
There are risks involved with many activities in life. Warning labels or not, it depends on how risk averse an individual or company is. I don’t skydive because of the risk yet many others are involved in the sport and enjoy it. I also don’t gamble because of the risk of financial loss, but many choose to do so. I don’t smoke cannabis but I did help facilitate oil for pain for my Cousin who was dying of cancer. Doctors remarked how remarkable it was that he got off opiates and didn’t have pain, even during chemo and close to his death from pancreatic cancer. He wasn’t high and was with us much more than is time on prescription pain meds. Some think the issue is black and white because of personal experience. I guess that’s true of me too where I’ve see some positive outcomes from cannabis.
I don’t form my opinions because of personal experience; my personal experience caused me to learn a lot about the subject that I didn’t know before. From experts in rehabilitation, mental health, physicians and from people who help people recover from addiction.
The AMA and the American Psychiatry Association have never endorsed legal recreational weed. The AMA has opposed it. I tend to think they have looked at the subject closely with objective, compassionate eyes.
Pot Warnings: “You could be subject to prosecution by the Judicial branch of the government. But you can’t get addicted, which is what you already believe anyway.”
Craig,
Didn’t you read the title of the article. Be warned about claiming your cannabis expertise there, buddy! Now you and cyber – that could be a different story.
Teaching a dog to dance: The article was about the potential for lawsuits against agents for claiming cannabis expertise when selling insurance. And how would that lawsuit arise? When the pot business got sued in a way not expected to be covered by either the agent or the insurance policy. And what might that be? A policy that does not cover failure to warn allegations. Or a policy that excludes them. Or a policy with low limits that didn’t contemplate class action suits from addicted or brain damaged or mentally ill consumers of the product. (I know, way too much logic for Captain Dark Helmet.)