Of course early claim experience is good. This is a long-tail line due to the long-term damage to cerebral functions of long-term stoners. Its’ claim experience may later resemble the problems experienced with asbestos; i.e. high severity, late emergence.
While I agree there are definitely long-tail claims yet to be filed, there is WAY more to marijuana insurance than just the long-term health of the consumers.
As stated in the article, we’re looking at potential claims due to: “product liability, bodily injury, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, in which people would consume a cannabis product and be injured in some way, or injure others, … mislabeling claims, false advertising claims, and consumer class actions alleging deceptive business practices, in terms of what’s on the label …”
Just saying — for the purposes of this insurance website — focusing solely on the long-term health risk of end users is not a holistic approach to try and forecast potential exposures that would need to be properly rated when drafting/selling the policy.
That is correct. Actuaries and underwriters should consider it (i.e. the potential for claims due to the multiple perils listed, plus others) in their class plans… to the extent the associated exposure unit is measurable and objective.
Of course early claim experience is good. This is a long-tail line due to the long-term damage to cerebral functions of long-term stoners. Its’ claim experience may later resemble the problems experienced with asbestos; i.e. high severity, late emergence.
I’m not so sure about that, I don’t partake but also do not condemn those that do, as long as it is legal to do so. I guess we can say the same about tobacco and alcohol.
Honestly, as an underwriter I am way more concerned with the property/crime exposure than liability. Unprotected property (growing/farming, for the most part), frame construction, heavy electrical use, under capitalized operations, theft, moral hazard, way too much supply, etc. No doubt things will get sorted out, but like any new industry it is going to take some time. Then let competition in the insurance industry take over to find the equilibrium. It will.
Of course early claim experience is good. This is a long-tail line due to the long-term damage to cerebral functions of long-term stoners. Its’ claim experience may later resemble the problems experienced with asbestos; i.e. high severity, late emergence.
I think that marijuana is going to be a gold mine for the Plaintiff’s Bar, if there’s money to be extracted from insurers. They are going to attack like a pack of hyenas. It is in their nature to attack anything which is not utterly harmless. Pot is not utterly harmless. I’ll not comment on the possible harm, I’m just saying that it isn’t utterly harmless and if it ain’t perfect, the swarms of lawyers and claimants looking for a windfall will attack. They are suing the daylights out of big pharma. How long before the first TV commercial offering the possibility of “cash compensation” for injury, real or imagined, coming from marijuana?
Not long my friends.
Pot is a long tail exposure for an industry which has all the appearance of being unstable due to it’s novelty. Apart from the fact that I hate the stuff, as a businessman, I don’t think I would want to get involved in it. I’ve never been to a “legal pot” state, but are the people in the legal pot industry a bit unsavory? I picture them that way, but I could be wrong.
I live in a “legal pot” state, and the people in the industry run the gamut, from serious business professionals to aging hippies. But I think that’s really beside the point. Your earlier point is where it’s really at: as the cannabis industry grows and there’s real money involved, and they can get real business insurance, the exposures (and the coverages) will grow to the point where the attorneys get interested. Where the money is, there also will the lawyers be.
Almost seven out of ten Baby Boomers partake in some form of cannabis? I find that very hard to believe. It is obvious that these analytics firms are very, very pro-cannabis, not that I am anti, because I am not, not at all. As an underwriter I am strictly looking at this class of business from an exposure point of view, from both a property and liability perspective, nothing more, and right now it just does not pencil out. But I have no doubt it will one day, once the industry finds it’s equilibrium in risk management, pricing, competition, etc..
In our area the stores are well-run, in retail strip centers, and look like upscale stores. The lobbies are full of very elderly people in wheelchairs and on walkers, with some PTSD veterans, and some children suffering from epilepsy and effects of cancer treatment. Didn’t see any ‘potheads”.
Humorous that you separated “Christian” from “logical”.
June 18, 2019 at 4:23 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Bob, I saw on the news that Seattle’s homelessness and drug culture is almost as bad as LA and SF. People sleeping on the streets, used needles everywhere and nothing done about it.
June 3, 2019 at 4:30 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Okay bob – how about you try to explain it way … if his statement is true, there’s no insurance-related exposure and I don’t know why he bothered to post that comment since it doesn’t apply to this discussion. Why do you think he posted it, then??
See discussion below where the NY Times reported that 80% of pot grown in CA is grown illegaly. Obviously, Agent’s point is valid: when the lawsuits start to fly, a key defense will be that the plaintiff smoked illegal pot along with the defendant’s pot.
And the lawyer for Big Pot will claim the illegal pot was contaminated or too potent or some variation of that argument. Without a doubt.
So Agent’s point could not be more relevant to a discussion about future litigation and insurance.
Because almost no one buys exclusively from one source or another. You go to a party and someone has pot; you don’t ask “is that legal?” . . . meaning the lawsuits to come will be confused by the buying of street pot and legal pot by the same people.
And if the street pot or legal party-pot is contaminated or too potent or sold to under age people who become addicted, lose IQ or become mentally ill as a result . . .
You lefties never did figure out how to eliminate the Black Market, which is now bigger than ever, and the consequences are just obvious.
Care to provide any source that legalization has further fueled a black market? Seems to be counter intuitive. By the same logic, having guns be legal in the US is really what’s fueling the black market for firearms (as opposed to if they were completely banned).
That NY Times article is about how CA is not issuing enough licenses which is causing shops to operate without licenses, which is and should be illegal.. “Regulators cite this tepid embrace by California municipalities as one of many reasons for the state’s persistent and pervasive illegal market.” The article further mentions that other states are not experiencing this same issue.
May 31, 2019 at 9:10 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
ReUW,
Wait for it…here comes the spin…
May 31, 2019 at 12:05 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
Oh, RW, you are one persistently dishonest Lefty (redundant, I know).
The HEADLINE of the article tells you what is in the body of the article: an admission that the Black Market is growing, not shrinking. After we were promised the opposite. Just like all the Legal Pot arguments: the opposite came true instead.
But of course the Lefties in the NY Times would say the solution is more government! It always is, even when government has failed abysmally at squashing the Black Market like we were promised.
And (why do I bother with dishonest or weak critical thinkers?) the NY Times cites the “problem” of not enough licenses in other states because . . . wait for it . . . the Black Market is growing there too.
Man, no wonder you guys never learn anything.
May 31, 2019 at 12:29 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
LOL @ “The HEADLINE of the article tells you what is in the body of the article.” Classic Craig.
May 31, 2019 at 12:43 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
80% of the pot grown in California is for illegal purposes says the body of the article. (Just like the Headline says, Genius)
Classic Rosenblatt: A weak mind exposed by Dishonesty.
May 31, 2019 at 1:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
7
2
Craig: “80% of the pot grown in California is for illegal purposes says the body of the article.”
Article: “80 percent of California’s nearly 500 municipalities do not allow retail marijuana businesses.”
Those two sentences do not mean the same thing — and you know it, which is why you responded with an ad-homenim attack and didn’t actually quote the article like I just did.
May 31, 2019 at 1:49 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
See below, genius. It is what you call and exact quote.
May 31, 2019 at 12:10 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
From the NY Times article:
“Of the roughly 14 million pounds of marijuana grown in California annually, only a fraction — less than 20 percent according to state estimates and a private research firm — is consumed in California. The rest seeps out across the country illicitly, through the mail, express delivery services, private vehicles and small aircraft that ply trafficking routes that have existed for decades.”
Good luck controlling 80% of the illegal pot with “more licenses”.
My apologies Craig. I was wrong. I searched for “80%” and “illegal” in the article and only found the quote I provided. Upon further review, I agree the part you cited above is in the article too. I apologize for my mistake.
See buddy … there’s no shame in admitting when you post something that’s wrong. Everyone makes mistakes.
Well then you must think you have read all my posts. Which would be kind of creepy. And you would be wrong about me having admitted mistakes in the past – and more than once.
But hey, popping off untrue statements is what you do, right? And admitting when YOU make a mistake like you did right now?
Not Gonna Happen.
May 31, 2019 at 4:26 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
all i have to do to prove you are not batting 1.000 is find ONE post where you’ve made something up and never admitted you were wrong. thankfully rosenblatt already found one yesterday
Rosenblatt says:
Still waiting for an actual answer from you for once.
Do you agree the rules governing this particular vote required a unanimous vote to proceed, and therefore that the Democrat’s can’t just “do whatever they damn well like” and can’t “override any Republican objection” because it requires a unanimous agreement and not just a simple majority vote or 2/3rds voting ‘yay’?
May 31, 2019 at 5:22 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
8
Okay, Clown Boy: here are the facts on that.
The ONLY reason a unanimous vote is required is that Congress is not back in session for another week.
Once in session, Nancy can have the entire House vote, in which case the Democrats CAN do whatever they like because they are the majority.
And again, if this minor delay is SO upsetting, then why aren’t you even more upset that the Democrats delayed the “urgent” funds for 6 months?
Because you are a hack, a dishonest hack.
June 3, 2019 at 4:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
And then there’s this typical response…
Why don’t you find a single post you admitted you were wrong to me eh?
Just one.
And if you can’t, I’ll state you never admit you’re wrong. So you have to prove that something I said about you isn’t correct. That is backwards.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
While I agree there are definitely long-tail claims yet to be filed, there is WAY more to marijuana insurance than just the long-term health of the consumers.
As stated in the article, we’re looking at potential claims due to: “product liability, bodily injury, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, in which people would consume a cannabis product and be injured in some way, or injure others, … mislabeling claims, false advertising claims, and consumer class actions alleging deceptive business practices, in terms of what’s on the label …”
Just saying — for the purposes of this insurance website — focusing solely on the long-term health risk of end users is not a holistic approach to try and forecast potential exposures that would need to be properly rated when drafting/selling the policy.
One could say the same thing in regards to many other segments, such as the craft beverage industry and liver damage…
Or the nano-material going into everything we eat out of, wear, or lather onto our bodies.
That is correct. Actuaries and underwriters should consider it (i.e. the potential for claims due to the multiple perils listed, plus others) in their class plans… to the extent the associated exposure unit is measurable and objective.
Of course early claim experience is good. This is a long-tail line due to the long-term damage to cerebral functions of long-term stoners. Its’ claim experience may later resemble the problems experienced with asbestos; i.e. high severity, late emergence.
I’m not so sure about that, I don’t partake but also do not condemn those that do, as long as it is legal to do so. I guess we can say the same about tobacco and alcohol.
Honestly, as an underwriter I am way more concerned with the property/crime exposure than liability. Unprotected property (growing/farming, for the most part), frame construction, heavy electrical use, under capitalized operations, theft, moral hazard, way too much supply, etc. No doubt things will get sorted out, but like any new industry it is going to take some time. Then let competition in the insurance industry take over to find the equilibrium. It will.
Of course early claim experience is good. This is a long-tail line due to the long-term damage to cerebral functions of long-term stoners. Its’ claim experience may later resemble the problems experienced with asbestos; i.e. high severity, late emergence.
I think that marijuana is going to be a gold mine for the Plaintiff’s Bar, if there’s money to be extracted from insurers. They are going to attack like a pack of hyenas. It is in their nature to attack anything which is not utterly harmless. Pot is not utterly harmless. I’ll not comment on the possible harm, I’m just saying that it isn’t utterly harmless and if it ain’t perfect, the swarms of lawyers and claimants looking for a windfall will attack. They are suing the daylights out of big pharma. How long before the first TV commercial offering the possibility of “cash compensation” for injury, real or imagined, coming from marijuana?
Not long my friends.
Pot is a long tail exposure for an industry which has all the appearance of being unstable due to it’s novelty. Apart from the fact that I hate the stuff, as a businessman, I don’t think I would want to get involved in it. I’ve never been to a “legal pot” state, but are the people in the legal pot industry a bit unsavory? I picture them that way, but I could be wrong.
I live in a “legal pot” state, and the people in the industry run the gamut, from serious business professionals to aging hippies. But I think that’s really beside the point. Your earlier point is where it’s really at: as the cannabis industry grows and there’s real money involved, and they can get real business insurance, the exposures (and the coverages) will grow to the point where the attorneys get interested. Where the money is, there also will the lawyers be.
Almost seven out of ten Baby Boomers partake in some form of cannabis? I find that very hard to believe. It is obvious that these analytics firms are very, very pro-cannabis, not that I am anti, because I am not, not at all. As an underwriter I am strictly looking at this class of business from an exposure point of view, from both a property and liability perspective, nothing more, and right now it just does not pencil out. But I have no doubt it will one day, once the industry finds it’s equilibrium in risk management, pricing, competition, etc..
I hear cannabis claim handlers are reeeeeeeaaaaallllyyy chill and laid back. If you’re not careful you have to do an IUO (Inhalation Under Oath).
In our area the stores are well-run, in retail strip centers, and look like upscale stores. The lobbies are full of very elderly people in wheelchairs and on walkers, with some PTSD veterans, and some children suffering from epilepsy and effects of cancer treatment. Didn’t see any ‘potheads”.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
If true, there’s no insurance-related exposure and I don’t know why you bothered to post that comment since it doesn’t apply to this discussion.
Rosenblatt,
Consider the source.
I’ll go Christian:
Hate sin, not the sinner.
You cannot for the sake of one person’s weakness disregard their entire humanity and every comment (like you leftists often do and you do with Agent)
I’ll go logical:
One person’s failed comment or weak point has nothing to do with whether another comment they make is correct or incorrect.
This is just plain factual.
Source wars aren’t appropriate. Data wars are.
Humorous that you separated “Christian” from “logical”.
Bob, I saw on the news that Seattle’s homelessness and drug culture is almost as bad as LA and SF. People sleeping on the streets, used needles everywhere and nothing done about it.
Okay bob – how about you try to explain it way … if his statement is true, there’s no insurance-related exposure and I don’t know why he bothered to post that comment since it doesn’t apply to this discussion. Why do you think he posted it, then??
See discussion below where the NY Times reported that 80% of pot grown in CA is grown illegaly. Obviously, Agent’s point is valid: when the lawsuits start to fly, a key defense will be that the plaintiff smoked illegal pot along with the defendant’s pot.
And the lawyer for Big Pot will claim the illegal pot was contaminated or too potent or some variation of that argument. Without a doubt.
So Agent’s point could not be more relevant to a discussion about future litigation and insurance.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Care to provide any source that legalization has further fueled a black market? Seems to be counter intuitive. By the same logic, having guns be legal in the US is really what’s fueling the black market for firearms (as opposed to if they were completely banned).
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
March 21, 2018 at 3:52 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 0
You blah, blah, blah. I believe you. Seriously. You have a track record of unimpeachable honesty. Sure I do.
Reply
I did do my own research and found nothing to support your claim which is why I asked for a source. But I guess I’m the ignorant one as you say.
For unbiased results and credible resources, you should do your research using some search engine other than Goo-gul.
I guess you’re right, it only took me 2 seconds:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-legalization.html
That NY Times article is about how CA is not issuing enough licenses which is causing shops to operate without licenses, which is and should be illegal.. “Regulators cite this tepid embrace by California municipalities as one of many reasons for the state’s persistent and pervasive illegal market.” The article further mentions that other states are not experiencing this same issue.
ReUW,
Wait for it…here comes the spin…
Oh, RW, you are one persistently dishonest Lefty (redundant, I know).
The HEADLINE of the article tells you what is in the body of the article: an admission that the Black Market is growing, not shrinking. After we were promised the opposite. Just like all the Legal Pot arguments: the opposite came true instead.
But of course the Lefties in the NY Times would say the solution is more government! It always is, even when government has failed abysmally at squashing the Black Market like we were promised.
And (why do I bother with dishonest or weak critical thinkers?) the NY Times cites the “problem” of not enough licenses in other states because . . . wait for it . . . the Black Market is growing there too.
Man, no wonder you guys never learn anything.
LOL @ “The HEADLINE of the article tells you what is in the body of the article.” Classic Craig.
80% of the pot grown in California is for illegal purposes says the body of the article. (Just like the Headline says, Genius)
Classic Rosenblatt: A weak mind exposed by Dishonesty.
Craig: “80% of the pot grown in California is for illegal purposes says the body of the article.”
Article: “80 percent of California’s nearly 500 municipalities do not allow retail marijuana businesses.”
Those two sentences do not mean the same thing — and you know it, which is why you responded with an ad-homenim attack and didn’t actually quote the article like I just did.
See below, genius. It is what you call and exact quote.
From the NY Times article:
“Of the roughly 14 million pounds of marijuana grown in California annually, only a fraction — less than 20 percent according to state estimates and a private research firm — is consumed in California. The rest seeps out across the country illicitly, through the mail, express delivery services, private vehicles and small aircraft that ply trafficking routes that have existed for decades.”
Good luck controlling 80% of the illegal pot with “more licenses”.
My apologies Craig. I was wrong. I searched for “80%” and “illegal” in the article and only found the quote I provided. Upon further review, I agree the part you cited above is in the article too. I apologize for my mistake.
See buddy … there’s no shame in admitting when you post something that’s wrong. Everyone makes mistakes.
Good for you. Nicely done. Sets you apart from the Captain Planets and ReUWs of the world.
— and the craig’s of the world too. never seen you admit any mistakes in your posts and you are certainly not batting 1.000
Well then you must think you have read all my posts. Which would be kind of creepy. And you would be wrong about me having admitted mistakes in the past – and more than once.
But hey, popping off untrue statements is what you do, right? And admitting when YOU make a mistake like you did right now?
Not Gonna Happen.
all i have to do to prove you are not batting 1.000 is find ONE post where you’ve made something up and never admitted you were wrong. thankfully rosenblatt already found one yesterday
http s://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/05/27/527508.htm?comments
Rosenblatt says:
Still waiting for an actual answer from you for once.
Do you agree the rules governing this particular vote required a unanimous vote to proceed, and therefore that the Democrat’s can’t just “do whatever they damn well like” and can’t “override any Republican objection” because it requires a unanimous agreement and not just a simple majority vote or 2/3rds voting ‘yay’?
Okay, Clown Boy: here are the facts on that.
The ONLY reason a unanimous vote is required is that Congress is not back in session for another week.
Once in session, Nancy can have the entire House vote, in which case the Democrats CAN do whatever they like because they are the majority.
And again, if this minor delay is SO upsetting, then why aren’t you even more upset that the Democrats delayed the “urgent” funds for 6 months?
Because you are a hack, a dishonest hack.
And then there’s this typical response…
Why don’t you find a single post you admitted you were wrong to me eh?
Just one.
And if you can’t, I’ll state you never admit you’re wrong. So you have to prove that something I said about you isn’t correct. That is backwards.
This is such ignorance I cannot believe it.