Michael Belisle

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Taylor Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) combined to obtain a judgment in favor of a boat owner before the U.S. District Court for Utah. The Salt Lake federal court entered judgment in exoneration of the owner in connection with a fire that occurred on October 26, 2023, on Lake Powell, causing damage to the vessel along with the surrounding dock infrastructure and other vessels. It was suspected that the fire was caused by lithium-ion batteries. While no one was on board the vessel at the time of the incident, neighboring vessel owners set the boat adrift after observing smoke billowing from its windows. Unfortunately, winds blew the vessel from one part of the marina to another, resulting in significant damage to the marina's dock, other vessels and surrounding property. Claimants in the proceeding included the marina operator, which had asserted claims for damages related to dock repairs and vessel salvage costs. With no evidence proving the vessel owner had any knowledge of the cause of the fire, the marine withdrew its claims. With the Court's exoneration order, the vessel owner petitioner has been found free of liability, and the action is now closed.

A massive 320-page class action complaint filed on May 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has the attention of the cannabis sector. The insurance professionals who underwrite it should also be paying close attention. The case, Murray et al. v. Cresco Labs Inc. et al., represents the most ambitious legal assault yet on the marketing practices of major cannabis multistate operators (MSOs). The complaint makes explicit comparisons to the litigation playbook against “Big Tobacco” in the 1990s. With claims across 12 states and spanning allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and more, this lawsuit signals a new era of litigation risk that could reshape how cannabis companies are underwritten and insured. What the Case is About Murray v. Cresco is a consumer class action brought by more than 40 named plaintiffs on behalf of recreational cannabis purchasers in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The defendants are three of the nation's largest cannabis MSOs: Cresco Labs Inc., Green Thumb Industries Inc. and Verano Holdings Corp. Each defendant is a vertically-integrated cannabis operator, meaning they cultivate, process, distribute and sell cannabis products under a portfolio of consumer-facing brands. Cresco sells under brands like Sunnyside, High Supply, FloraCal, and Wonder Wellness; Green Thumb uses brands like Rhythm, Dogwalkers, Good Green and Rise; Verano operates under Zen Leaf, Encore Edibles, BITS and Cabbage Club, among others. The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in the Northern District of Illinois, the location of the defendants’ principal places of business. The complaint explicitly carves out claims related to physician-prescribed medical cannabis, focusing solely on adult-use purchases. A companion case targeting Curaleaf Holdings was filed the same day in the District of Connecticut. The Central Narrative Plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or should have known, that cannabis products pose serious mental and physical health risks, yet chose to market those same products as safe, therapeutic, and even medicinal. The complaint paints a picture of an industry that borrowed from Big Tobacco's playbook, allegedly sponsoring less-than-rigorous research to generate consumer friendly health claims while burying the mounting scientific evidence of harm. As the complaint puts it, the defendants “deceptively marketed cannabis as medicine capable of alleviating or treating the very mental health disorders” they “knew or should have known were caused or exacerbated by the use of their products.” The Liability Theories The core liability theory is the federal RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants operated an “enterprise” engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including dealing in controlled substances illegal under federal law, mail fraud, wire fraud, and monetary transactions in criminally derived property. The RICO claim is significant because it opens the door to potential treble damages, meaning any actual damages could be tripled, plus attorneys' fees. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn confirmed that RICO can apply to economic harms tied to mislabeled cannabis products. The complaint also asserts state-specific consumer protection claims in all 12 states where the representative plaintiffs reside. These include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, New York's General Business Law Section 349, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and analogous statutes in each remaining jurisdiction. Across all states, plaintiffs argued that defendants made affirmative misrepresentations about health benefits while concealing known risks, inducing consumers to purchase products they otherwise would not have bought, or to overpay for them. The complaint further alleges breach of express and implied warranties under each state’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. By representing their products as treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, pain and other conditions, defendants allegedly created and violated express warranties that the products would perform as described. Implied warranty claims assert that cannabis products marketed as wellness aids were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” Finally, negligent misrepresentation claims target the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in communicating health information to consumers. The Health Science at the Heart of the Case The factual backbone of the complaint runs over a hundred pages of citations to various scientific studies and papers. The plaintiffs reference research alleging connections of cannabis use to psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and anxiety. The complaint cites a 2025 study finding that states with open recreational dispensaries experienced a 12 percent increase in admissions to state mental health facilities for psychotic disorders. A 2021 Danish study is also referenced for its finding that schizophrenia cases associated with cannabis use disorder increased 300 percent to 400 percent over 20 years as potency doubled. The complaint also cites cardiovascular studies, including a 2025 meta-analysis that reportedly found cannabis use doubled the risk of cardiovascular death and increased stroke risk by 20 percent. Another cited study estimates the odds of heart attack among cannabis users at more than six times higher than non-users. The complaint also highlights prenatal risks, citing a 2025 review linking cannabis use during pregnancy to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) and cannabis use disorder (CUD) are include in the complaint’s litany of health harms. Focus on Industry Awareness The complaint emphasizes that these health risks are not new discoveries. It alleges that the defendants had “actual and constructive knowledge” of these dangers, derived from years of publicly available peer-reviewed studies and governmental advisories, yet “failed to adequately warn their customers.” Instead, plaintiffs contend the defendants went in the opposite direction by marketing cannabis as a remedy for the conditions it allegedly makes worse. The Playbook is Growing The lead attorney in Murray v. Cresco, Patrick Kenneally, is a former Illinois county prosecutor with a track record of taking on cannabis companies. In 2023, he compelled dispensaries in McHenry County, Illinois to post in-store warnings about cannabis-related mental health risks, a first in the country, and to fund a billboard campaign linking cannabis to suicide and schizophrenia. An earlier, similar lawsuit against Verano was dismissed in March 2026, but the new complaint appears broader and more detailed. A spokesperson for Verano told MJBizDaily that the suit “mirrors claims that have been rejected by courts in similar legal actions against multistate operators in the industry earlier this year.” Whether the 320-page complaint overcomes those defenses remains to be seen. Rescheduling Adds Fuel The timing is notable. On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an order rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Greater federal legitimacy may bring greater legal exposure. Rescheduling is likely to expand market access and raise expectations for product safety and accurate labeling, making negligence and consumer protection claims more likely for compliance lapses. Canada Offers a Preview Canada legalized recreational cannabis nationally in 2018, and its litigation experience since then is instructive. The country has seen a wave of product liability class actions, including Downton v. Organigram Holdings, the first certified cannabis product liability class action in Canada, involving pesticide contamination. Proposed actions have also targeted major Canadian producers over inadequate risk disclosures related to CHS. The pattern is consistent with what now appears to be emerging in the United States – consumer litigation follows the market opening up. Why This Matters for Cannabis Insurers For insurance professionals, Murray v. Cresco crystallizes several risks that the industry has long discussed in the abstract. The case represents a concrete, large-scale litigation event with the potential for enormous exposure. The RICO claim alone, with its treble-damage multiplier, could transform a significant jury verdict into a catastrophic one. Class certification across 12 states would dramatically multiply the defendant pool and the aggregate damages. The underwriting on cannabis product liability has, to date, focused on potential contamination, mislabeling, and the occasional exposure or ingestion-based bodily injury claim. Murray v. Cresco, however, introduces a different species of claim, one rooted in marketing conduct rather than product defect in the traditional sense. Currently, the insurance industry is largely insulated from large consumer class actions like Murray v. Cresco. Many cannabis policies contain broad health-hazard exclusions, which could deny coverage for claims involving specified adverse health effects from cannabis products. Class action exclusions are common, as are exclusions for statutory penalties like treble damages under RICO and state consumer protection awards. RICO-based claims are also vulnerable to criminal-acts exclusions or specific carve-outs for racketeering-related conduct. Coverage Disputes on the Horizon Notwithstanding this insulation, insurers should expect that defendants in cases like Murray will tender claims under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies, products completed operations policies, directors and officers (D&O) policies, and any specialty cannabis coverage they hold. The question of whether deceptive marketing and failure-to-warn allegations fall within a products-completed operations hazard, an advertising injury provision, or some other coverage grant will likely be fiercely contested. What Underwriters Should be Asking Going forward, underwriters writing cannabis risks should scrutinize their insureds' marketing practices with the same focus they currently bring to product testing and labeling. Documented testing integrity, warning protocols, supply-chain oversight, and recall history are all important along with marketing discipline. Policies should be reviewed for RICO and state consumer statute exposure. Underwriters should pay attention to emerging scientific studies on the health effect of cannabis use. Insureds that continue to make unsupported health claims, the kind at the center of Murray v. Cresco, present a different risk profile than those that keep their marketing factual and scientifically supported. Conclusion Murray v. Cresco may or may not succeed on the merits. Defendants will raise formidable challenges, including preemption arguments, standing issues, the difficulty of class certification across a dozen state consumer-protection regimes, causation defenses and the still-evolving science around cannabis and health. But the complaint’s sheer scale, its RICO backbone, and its explicit comparisons to Big Tobacco litigation signal that the era of treating cannabis product liability as a hypothetical future risk is over. For insurers and their cannabis policyholders, the takeaway is practical and immediate. Marketing claims are now a front-line litigation target, and the industry needs to treat them accordingly. Risk-mitigation programs should include compliance audits of all consumer-facing health claims, robust product warnings modeled on the warnings that accompany over-the-counter medical products, and honest internal assessments of what the science supports. Meanwhile, insurers should be reviewing policy language to understand their own exposure in the event that lawsuits like this one multiply. This article was published in the May 18, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.

Richard W. Boone Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) will offer a practical roadmap for drafting coverage letters that clearly articulate the insurer's position, comply with regulatory requirements, preserve defenses, and withstand judicial scrutiny. Designed for both insurance professionals and coverage attorneys, Richard’s presentation will draw on real-world claims-handling experience and case law from multiple jurisdictions to address common pitfalls that lead to waiver, estoppel, and bad-faith exposure. Attendees will learn how to conduct a thorough coverage analysis, from insuring agreements through exclusions, conditions, and endorsements, and how to produce clear, persuasive, and defensible coverage correspondence that serves both the insurer's interests and the insured's right to a good-faith coverage determination.

Nevada’s Supreme Court decided in Powers v. Dist. Ct. that NRS 629.620 violated Nevada’s separation of powers and is unconstitutional. This has immediate implications for clients defending traumatic brain injury cases in Nevada. The Decision The statute was sponsored by the local plaintiffs' bar and purported to regulate physical and mental examinations, replacing Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 35(NRCP). This was a second attempt, as the Supreme Court also deemed an earlier statute, NRS 52.380, unconstitutional for the same reasons. Both statutes upset the balance in tort litigation, violated separation of powers, and negatively affected defendants' ability to defend themselves. Powers also addressed recurring questions concerning neuropsychological examinations. These examinations generate raw data. In practice, courts had ruled this raw data could be exchanged only between the parties’ neuropsychologists. Here, the plaintiff wanted his counsel to have access to the raw data generated from the examination but without the expense of hiring his own neuropsychologist. The Supreme Court concluded “the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting disclosure of the raw data to Bueno’s counsel, subject to a protective order.” The Court concluded “the generalized fears of some neuropsychologists that nonpsychologists, if they are provided raw data, will violate protective orders, misuse the tests and irreparably compromise the validity of future testing, is not sufficient” to support further, narrower restrictions. Finally, Powers addressed the plaintiff’s request to audio record the examination. Applying NRCP 35, “generally, recording is only proper when the court finds special circumstances amounting to good cause for the requests.” These special circumstances “are rare and typically include extreme situations….” The plaintiff’s “generalized fear that the neuropsychologist might distort the test results in front of the jury” was not sufficient. Michael Lowry (Partner-Las Vegas) submitted an amicus brief for Las Vegas Defense Lawyers asserting that NRS 629.620 was unconstitutional. The brief also addressed problems with the district court’s order implementing neuropsychological testing requirements. Implications for Pending Cases First, NRS 629.620 is inapplicable to litigated cases. This restores balance and discretion to the district courts. Removing NRS 629.620 also helps defendants in brain injury cases because the statute made it nearly impossible to obtain a neuropsychological examination. These requests are instead governed by NRCP 35. The Court, however, ruled narrowly and did not address whether NRS 629.620 may be applicable in other scenarios, such as pre-litigation examinations, UM/UIM claims, worker’s compensation claims, and other settings. This may not be the end of this years-long dispute, though. Like after the Supreme Court’s Lyft v. Dist. Ct. decision, NRS 629.620’s supporters might return to the legislature in the coming session and attempt to modify the statute in some way to achieve their goals but not violate separation of powers. Secondarily, though, defendants may still have a difficult time finding neuropsychologists willing to perform examinations. As a result of years of research, the neuropsychological community restricts the raw data generated from testing. It can be provided only to other neuropsychologists for their review. Powers, however, ruled that a party cannot be forced to hire an expert, and the district court adequately addressed the community’s confidentiality concerns by entering a protective order. Powers did not discuss NAC 641.234(3) and (4), which have the effect of expressly prohibiting such disclosure. The result is conflict between the neuropsychologist’s regulatory obligations and the terms of a court’s order. It seems likely this conflict will generate more motion work and writ petitions in future cases.

A prior analysis examined the Virginia legislature’s rejection of a sweeping proposal to overhaul the state’s medical malpractice damages cap. That proposal would have doubled the cap from $3 million to $6 million, allowed prejudgment interest, expanded the statute of limitations, and imposed new insurance requirements on nursing homes. Instead, the legislature passed a narrower, reconciled version of Senate Bill 536 that left the existing damages cap schedule under Virginia Code § 8.01-581.15 untouched but created a new reporting framework requiring commercial insurers and self-insured hospitals to disclose detailed malpractice claims data to legislative leaders. At the time of publication, the reconciled bill had been sent to Governor Spanberger, who had until April 13 to sign, veto, or propose amendments.  Rather than sign or veto the reconciled bill, Governor Spanberger returned it to the legislature on April 12, 2026, with a set of proposed amendments that reshaped several key aspects of the reporting framework. On April 22, the amended reconciled bill was enacted, with an effective date of July 1, 2026. Bottom Line for Virginia Healthcare Entities The medical malpractice damages cap remains unchanged, but a new reporting law takes effect on July 1, 2026, with an initial disclosure deadline of October 1, 2026. The governor’s amendments broadened who must report, redirected all disclosures through the Bureau of Insurance (the “Bureau”), strengthened confidentiality protections, and eliminated the most sensitive reporting metric. However, it also expanded the scope of the law beyond hospitals to reach a wider range of healthcare entities.  Key Changes Under the Enacted Law Expanded Scope of Reporting Entities Unlike the original bill that applied to only hospitals or health systems licensed under Virginia Code § 32.1-123 that self insure or maintain retained-risk arrangements, the enacted law applies to every “medical care facility, as defined in § 32.1-3, or other health care provider” that maintains self insurance, captive insurance, risk retention arrangements, or other retained financial risk. As a result, Virginia healthcare entities that did not consider themselves subject to the original bill should assess whether they now fall within the enacted law’s broader reach. Elimination of the Revenue-Percentage Metric The original bill required self-insured hospitals to disclose total malpractice liability expenditures expressed as a percentage of the hospital’s total patient service revenue. The enacted law eliminates this requirement, leaving three categories of disclosure: (1) the number of covered physicians and providers, (2) claims activity, and (3) malpractice expenditures. This is a meaningful change. The revenue-percentage metric would have provided a uniquely revealing window into each hospital’s financial exposure relative to its operations. Anti-Duplication Provision The enacted law adds a practical provision to prevent duplicative reporting: a healthcare provider is not required to report information that has already been included in a report submitted by the entity providing its self insurance, captive insurance, or risk retention coverage. In other words, if a hospital system’s captive insurer files the required disclosures, individual hospitals covered by that program need not file separate, duplicative reports. Hospitals should confirm with their insurers or risk retention groups whether coverage-level reporting will satisfy their individual obligations. New Insurer Disclosure Requirement For commercial insurers, the enacted law adds a requirement not found in the original bill: insurers must now disclose the identity of the named insureds under their medical malpractice policies. Hospitals insured by commercial carriers should be aware that their identity as a named insured will be part of the insurer’s disclosure to the Bureau. Centralization Through the Bureau of Insurance Perhaps the most structurally significant change involves where disclosures are submitted and how they are processed. The original bill directed all reporting to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committees for Courts of Justice, with the Clerks of each chamber making the information publicly available on the General Assembly’s website. The enacted law redirects this entire process through the State Corporation Commission’s Bureau. Disclosures must now be submitted to the Bureau in a uniform format that it prescribes that is consistent with the format of claim-reporting requirements already established under Virginia Code § 38.2-2228.2. The Bureau is responsible for compiling and analyzing the data, preparing an aggregate summary report, and submitting that report to the legislative committee leaders. Importantly, the Bureau’s aggregate report (not the raw disclosures) is what will be made publicly available on the General Assembly’s website. This is a significant structural improvement and reduces the risk of raw data being taken out of context or used selectively in public debate. Comparison by Size, Region, and Facility Type The enacted law directs the Bureau to present data, to the extent practicable, “in a manner that allows comparison among healthcare providers by size, region, or type of facility,” using anonymized or de-identified formats. While the law prohibits identifying any individual provider, hospitals should be aware that comparisons by size, region, or facility type could narrow the field enough to make identification possible as a practical matter. This provision warrants careful attention when preparing disclosures. Strengthened Confidentiality Protections The original bill stated broadly that disclosures would be confidential and exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act except in aggregate form. The enacted law replaces this with a more detailed and protective mechanism. Reporting entities may designate specific data as confidential proprietary information upon submission, provided they: (i) invoke the exclusion in writing, (ii) identify the protected material, and (iii) state the reason protection is necessary. Information properly designated as confidential will be protected from subpoena responses and public inspection. Officer Certification Requirement Disclosures must be “certified as accurate and complete by an officer of the reporting entity.” This places personal responsibility on a hospital officer for the accuracy of the filing.  Extended Initial Deadline The original bill set the first disclosure deadline as September 1, 2026. The enacted law extends this to October 1, 2026. Subsequent annual disclosures remain due on or before March 31 of each year for the preceding calendar year. Verdicts Exceeding the Cap Both the original and enacted versions require all reporting entities to submit a list of verdicts exceeding the statutory cap. Each entry must include the verdict amount, the amount recoverable after application of the cap, and the year the cause of action accrued. No personally-identifiable information may be disclosed. This provision is clearly designed to build a public record demonstrating the gap between what juries award and what plaintiffs can recover. Automatic Sunset Both versions contain the same expiration mechanism: the reporting requirements expire upon the effective date of any future legislation establishing a new limitation on recovery for medical malpractice actions. This confirms the legislative intent that the reporting framework is a temporary, data-gathering tool designed to inform future changes to the cap. Strategic Implications Virginia’s medical malpractice damages cap is intact but is under active review, and the data collected under this new law will fuel the next round of legislative efforts to increase it. With the October 1, 2026 initial deadline approaching, Virginia hospitals and healthcare entities should consider taking the following steps: 1) determine whether an institution falls within the enacted law’s expanded definition of “medical care facility” or “other healthcare provider;” 2) coordinate the production of the required materials with insurers or risk retention groups; 3) compile the necessary information for disclosure; 4) identify and designate confidential proprietary information; 5) designate a certifying officer; 6) monitor the Bureau’s prescribed format; and 7) prepare for future debates on raising the medical malpractice damages cap.

Kelsi Piatkowski (Partner-Houston, TX) and Angela Morales (Associate-Houston, TX) successfully defended their client in a suit arising from a motor vehicle accident, where multiple theories were alleged, including vicarious liability. The plaintiff advanced an increasingly utilized – but legally unrecognized – theory that cellphone application notifications sent to an independent contractor delivery driver transformed the relationship into one of employment. They also contended that the client owed a duty to prevent independent drivers from engaging in distracted driving. After extensive briefing and oral argument, including an argument that Texas law does not recognize a cause of action imposing tort liability on technology platforms for an independent driver’s decision to interact with a mobile device while driving, the Court granted our client’s motion for summary judgment. Indeed, the Court ordered all claims dismissed with prejudice.

Jacqueline Hattar (Partner-White Plains, NY) will co-host the Pace Women's Justice Center (PWJC) "Cocktails for a Cause" fundraiser on May 28, 2026, at the Barley Beach House in Rye, New York. The event supports the PWJC's commitment to increasing access to justice by providing free legal services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. The funds raised will support the PWJC’s critical services for survivors of abuse. Jackie is a long-time PWJC Advisory Board member and a past recipient of the Center's “Making A Difference” award. She also serves on the Board of Visitors at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. The PWJC, housed at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law in White Plains, New York, is a self-funded, nonprofit legal center that falls under Pace University's 501(c)(3) status. The Center conducts or participates in more than 140 training and outreach events annually, providing free legal services to some 3,500 survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. Serving Westchester and Putnam Counties, the PWJC's mission is to pursue justice for victims and prevent abuse by offering quality legal services, fostering community partnerships, and promoting education and awareness. 

BTI Consulting Group recently named Wilson Elser among the top firms for women associate satisfaction in its “BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026” report. Out of 138 firms recognized and singled out by women for cultivating associate job satisfaction, Wilson Elser was named among the 26 firms earning the “Best of the Best” distinction. BTI’s research highlights the law firms where women associates report the strongest levels of support, professional development, and confidence in their long-term career prospects. The rankings are informed by survey feedback on areas such as mentorship, training, advancement opportunities, and the extent to which firm leadership actively invests in associate success. Industry recognition in this area reflects more than reputation alone. The rankings reflect Wilson Elser’s commitment to fostering an environment where all attorneys can grow, advance, and thrive, underscoring the firm’s long-term investment in its people and culture.

Denise Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville) will be a panelist at the 2026 AAA-ICDR Construction Conference in Marina Del Rey on June 4, 2026. She will join an expert panel of arbitrators/mediators and in-house counsel to discuss the implications of labor and supply chain issues increasingly impacting the construction industry. Denise and her fellow panelists will offer insights into navigating these claims and examine how early mediation, arbitration, and dispute review boards may help parties reach resolutions before disputes escalate.

Maryan Alexander (Partner-Baltimore, MD) is quoted in the article “RIAs Explore Litigation Finance Via SEI Access,” appearing in the May 15, 2026, posting of InvestmentNews. The article discusses how alternative investment platforms are increasingly offering litigation finance opportunities to financial advisors, enabling investors to potentially profit from courtroom outcomes in lawsuits rather than relying on traditional market performance. While proponents say the asset class can deliver strong, non-market-correlated returns, many registered investment advisors remain cautious because outcomes depend heavily on legal proceedings, creating uncertainty and valuation challenges. The article also highlights growing regulatory scrutiny, particularly in New York, where new legislation aims to increase transparency and consumer protections in litigation funding arrangements. Maryan notes, “New York has moved litigation financing from the shadows to a supervised, disclosure-heavy regime, while empowering courts to probe funding when it bears on motive or misconduct,” adding that “stakeholders should prepare for regulatory compliance and more nuanced discovery practice as these changes take hold.”

Richard W. Boone Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) will offer a practical roadmap for drafting coverage letters that clearly articulate the insurer's position, comply with regulatory requirements, preserve defenses, and withstand judicial scrutiny. Designed for both insurance professionals and coverage attorneys, Richard’s presentation will draw on real-world claims-handling experience and case law from multiple jurisdictions to address common pitfalls that lead to waiver, estoppel, and bad-faith exposure. Attendees will learn how to conduct a thorough coverage analysis, from insuring agreements through exclusions, conditions, and endorsements, and how to produce clear, persuasive, and defensible coverage correspondence that serves both the insurer's interests and the insured's right to a good-faith coverage determination.

A massive 320-page class action complaint filed on May 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has the attention of the cannabis sector. The insurance professionals who underwrite it should also be paying close attention. The case, Murray et al. v. Cresco Labs Inc. et al., represents the most ambitious legal assault yet on the marketing practices of major cannabis multistate operators (MSOs). The complaint makes explicit comparisons to the litigation playbook against “Big Tobacco” in the 1990s. With claims across 12 states and spanning allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and more, this lawsuit signals a new era of litigation risk that could reshape how cannabis companies are underwritten and insured. What the Case is About Murray v. Cresco is a consumer class action brought by more than 40 named plaintiffs on behalf of recreational cannabis purchasers in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The defendants are three of the nation's largest cannabis MSOs: Cresco Labs Inc., Green Thumb Industries Inc. and Verano Holdings Corp. Each defendant is a vertically-integrated cannabis operator, meaning they cultivate, process, distribute and sell cannabis products under a portfolio of consumer-facing brands. Cresco sells under brands like Sunnyside, High Supply, FloraCal, and Wonder Wellness; Green Thumb uses brands like Rhythm, Dogwalkers, Good Green and Rise; Verano operates under Zen Leaf, Encore Edibles, BITS and Cabbage Club, among others. The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in the Northern District of Illinois, the location of the defendants’ principal places of business. The complaint explicitly carves out claims related to physician-prescribed medical cannabis, focusing solely on adult-use purchases. A companion case targeting Curaleaf Holdings was filed the same day in the District of Connecticut. The Central Narrative Plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or should have known, that cannabis products pose serious mental and physical health risks, yet chose to market those same products as safe, therapeutic, and even medicinal. The complaint paints a picture of an industry that borrowed from Big Tobacco's playbook, allegedly sponsoring less-than-rigorous research to generate consumer friendly health claims while burying the mounting scientific evidence of harm. As the complaint puts it, the defendants “deceptively marketed cannabis as medicine capable of alleviating or treating the very mental health disorders” they “knew or should have known were caused or exacerbated by the use of their products.” The Liability Theories The core liability theory is the federal RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants operated an “enterprise” engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including dealing in controlled substances illegal under federal law, mail fraud, wire fraud, and monetary transactions in criminally derived property. The RICO claim is significant because it opens the door to potential treble damages, meaning any actual damages could be tripled, plus attorneys' fees. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn confirmed that RICO can apply to economic harms tied to mislabeled cannabis products. The complaint also asserts state-specific consumer protection claims in all 12 states where the representative plaintiffs reside. These include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, New York's General Business Law Section 349, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and analogous statutes in each remaining jurisdiction. Across all states, plaintiffs argued that defendants made affirmative misrepresentations about health benefits while concealing known risks, inducing consumers to purchase products they otherwise would not have bought, or to overpay for them. The complaint further alleges breach of express and implied warranties under each state’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. By representing their products as treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, pain and other conditions, defendants allegedly created and violated express warranties that the products would perform as described. Implied warranty claims assert that cannabis products marketed as wellness aids were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” Finally, negligent misrepresentation claims target the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in communicating health information to consumers. The Health Science at the Heart of the Case The factual backbone of the complaint runs over a hundred pages of citations to various scientific studies and papers. The plaintiffs reference research alleging connections of cannabis use to psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and anxiety. The complaint cites a 2025 study finding that states with open recreational dispensaries experienced a 12 percent increase in admissions to state mental health facilities for psychotic disorders. A 2021 Danish study is also referenced for its finding that schizophrenia cases associated with cannabis use disorder increased 300 percent to 400 percent over 20 years as potency doubled. The complaint also cites cardiovascular studies, including a 2025 meta-analysis that reportedly found cannabis use doubled the risk of cardiovascular death and increased stroke risk by 20 percent. Another cited study estimates the odds of heart attack among cannabis users at more than six times higher than non-users. The complaint also highlights prenatal risks, citing a 2025 review linking cannabis use during pregnancy to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) and cannabis use disorder (CUD) are include in the complaint’s litany of health harms. Focus on Industry Awareness The complaint emphasizes that these health risks are not new discoveries. It alleges that the defendants had “actual and constructive knowledge” of these dangers, derived from years of publicly available peer-reviewed studies and governmental advisories, yet “failed to adequately warn their customers.” Instead, plaintiffs contend the defendants went in the opposite direction by marketing cannabis as a remedy for the conditions it allegedly makes worse. The Playbook is Growing The lead attorney in Murray v. Cresco, Patrick Kenneally, is a former Illinois county prosecutor with a track record of taking on cannabis companies. In 2023, he compelled dispensaries in McHenry County, Illinois to post in-store warnings about cannabis-related mental health risks, a first in the country, and to fund a billboard campaign linking cannabis to suicide and schizophrenia. An earlier, similar lawsuit against Verano was dismissed in March 2026, but the new complaint appears broader and more detailed. A spokesperson for Verano told MJBizDaily that the suit “mirrors claims that have been rejected by courts in similar legal actions against multistate operators in the industry earlier this year.” Whether the 320-page complaint overcomes those defenses remains to be seen. Rescheduling Adds Fuel The timing is notable. On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an order rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Greater federal legitimacy may bring greater legal exposure. Rescheduling is likely to expand market access and raise expectations for product safety and accurate labeling, making negligence and consumer protection claims more likely for compliance lapses. Canada Offers a Preview Canada legalized recreational cannabis nationally in 2018, and its litigation experience since then is instructive. The country has seen a wave of product liability class actions, including Downton v. Organigram Holdings, the first certified cannabis product liability class action in Canada, involving pesticide contamination. Proposed actions have also targeted major Canadian producers over inadequate risk disclosures related to CHS. The pattern is consistent with what now appears to be emerging in the United States – consumer litigation follows the market opening up. Why This Matters for Cannabis Insurers For insurance professionals, Murray v. Cresco crystallizes several risks that the industry has long discussed in the abstract. The case represents a concrete, large-scale litigation event with the potential for enormous exposure. The RICO claim alone, with its treble-damage multiplier, could transform a significant jury verdict into a catastrophic one. Class certification across 12 states would dramatically multiply the defendant pool and the aggregate damages. The underwriting on cannabis product liability has, to date, focused on potential contamination, mislabeling, and the occasional exposure or ingestion-based bodily injury claim. Murray v. Cresco, however, introduces a different species of claim, one rooted in marketing conduct rather than product defect in the traditional sense. Currently, the insurance industry is largely insulated from large consumer class actions like Murray v. Cresco. Many cannabis policies contain broad health-hazard exclusions, which could deny coverage for claims involving specified adverse health effects from cannabis products. Class action exclusions are common, as are exclusions for statutory penalties like treble damages under RICO and state consumer protection awards. RICO-based claims are also vulnerable to criminal-acts exclusions or specific carve-outs for racketeering-related conduct. Coverage Disputes on the Horizon Notwithstanding this insulation, insurers should expect that defendants in cases like Murray will tender claims under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies, products completed operations policies, directors and officers (D&O) policies, and any specialty cannabis coverage they hold. The question of whether deceptive marketing and failure-to-warn allegations fall within a products-completed operations hazard, an advertising injury provision, or some other coverage grant will likely be fiercely contested. What Underwriters Should be Asking Going forward, underwriters writing cannabis risks should scrutinize their insureds' marketing practices with the same focus they currently bring to product testing and labeling. Documented testing integrity, warning protocols, supply-chain oversight, and recall history are all important along with marketing discipline. Policies should be reviewed for RICO and state consumer statute exposure. Underwriters should pay attention to emerging scientific studies on the health effect of cannabis use. Insureds that continue to make unsupported health claims, the kind at the center of Murray v. Cresco, present a different risk profile than those that keep their marketing factual and scientifically supported. Conclusion Murray v. Cresco may or may not succeed on the merits. Defendants will raise formidable challenges, including preemption arguments, standing issues, the difficulty of class certification across a dozen state consumer-protection regimes, causation defenses and the still-evolving science around cannabis and health. But the complaint’s sheer scale, its RICO backbone, and its explicit comparisons to Big Tobacco litigation signal that the era of treating cannabis product liability as a hypothetical future risk is over. For insurers and their cannabis policyholders, the takeaway is practical and immediate. Marketing claims are now a front-line litigation target, and the industry needs to treat them accordingly. Risk-mitigation programs should include compliance audits of all consumer-facing health claims, robust product warnings modeled on the warnings that accompany over-the-counter medical products, and honest internal assessments of what the science supports. Meanwhile, insurers should be reviewing policy language to understand their own exposure in the event that lawsuits like this one multiply. This article was published in the May 18, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Taylor Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) combined to obtain a judgment in favor of a boat owner before the U.S. District Court for Utah. The Salt Lake federal court entered judgment in exoneration of the owner in connection with a fire that occurred on October 26, 2023, on Lake Powell, causing damage to the vessel along with the surrounding dock infrastructure and other vessels. It was suspected that the fire was caused by lithium-ion batteries. While no one was on board the vessel at the time of the incident, neighboring vessel owners set the boat adrift after observing smoke billowing from its windows. Unfortunately, winds blew the vessel from one part of the marina to another, resulting in significant damage to the marina's dock, other vessels and surrounding property. Claimants in the proceeding included the marina operator, which had asserted claims for damages related to dock repairs and vessel salvage costs. With no evidence proving the vessel owner had any knowledge of the cause of the fire, the marine withdrew its claims. With the Court's exoneration order, the vessel owner petitioner has been found free of liability, and the action is now closed.

Nevada’s Supreme Court decided in Powers v. Dist. Ct. that NRS 629.620 violated Nevada’s separation of powers and is unconstitutional. This has immediate implications for clients defending traumatic brain injury cases in Nevada. The Decision The statute was sponsored by the local plaintiffs' bar and purported to regulate physical and mental examinations, replacing Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 35(NRCP). This was a second attempt, as the Supreme Court also deemed an earlier statute, NRS 52.380, unconstitutional for the same reasons. Both statutes upset the balance in tort litigation, violated separation of powers, and negatively affected defendants' ability to defend themselves. Powers also addressed recurring questions concerning neuropsychological examinations. These examinations generate raw data. In practice, courts had ruled this raw data could be exchanged only between the parties’ neuropsychologists. Here, the plaintiff wanted his counsel to have access to the raw data generated from the examination but without the expense of hiring his own neuropsychologist. The Supreme Court concluded “the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting disclosure of the raw data to Bueno’s counsel, subject to a protective order.” The Court concluded “the generalized fears of some neuropsychologists that nonpsychologists, if they are provided raw data, will violate protective orders, misuse the tests and irreparably compromise the validity of future testing, is not sufficient” to support further, narrower restrictions. Finally, Powers addressed the plaintiff’s request to audio record the examination. Applying NRCP 35, “generally, recording is only proper when the court finds special circumstances amounting to good cause for the requests.” These special circumstances “are rare and typically include extreme situations….” The plaintiff’s “generalized fear that the neuropsychologist might distort the test results in front of the jury” was not sufficient. Michael Lowry (Partner-Las Vegas) submitted an amicus brief for Las Vegas Defense Lawyers asserting that NRS 629.620 was unconstitutional. The brief also addressed problems with the district court’s order implementing neuropsychological testing requirements. Implications for Pending Cases First, NRS 629.620 is inapplicable to litigated cases. This restores balance and discretion to the district courts. Removing NRS 629.620 also helps defendants in brain injury cases because the statute made it nearly impossible to obtain a neuropsychological examination. These requests are instead governed by NRCP 35. The Court, however, ruled narrowly and did not address whether NRS 629.620 may be applicable in other scenarios, such as pre-litigation examinations, UM/UIM claims, worker’s compensation claims, and other settings. This may not be the end of this years-long dispute, though. Like after the Supreme Court’s Lyft v. Dist. Ct. decision, NRS 629.620’s supporters might return to the legislature in the coming session and attempt to modify the statute in some way to achieve their goals but not violate separation of powers. Secondarily, though, defendants may still have a difficult time finding neuropsychologists willing to perform examinations. As a result of years of research, the neuropsychological community restricts the raw data generated from testing. It can be provided only to other neuropsychologists for their review. Powers, however, ruled that a party cannot be forced to hire an expert, and the district court adequately addressed the community’s confidentiality concerns by entering a protective order. Powers did not discuss NAC 641.234(3) and (4), which have the effect of expressly prohibiting such disclosure. The result is conflict between the neuropsychologist’s regulatory obligations and the terms of a court’s order. It seems likely this conflict will generate more motion work and writ petitions in future cases.

A prior analysis examined the Virginia legislature’s rejection of a sweeping proposal to overhaul the state’s medical malpractice damages cap. That proposal would have doubled the cap from $3 million to $6 million, allowed prejudgment interest, expanded the statute of limitations, and imposed new insurance requirements on nursing homes. Instead, the legislature passed a narrower, reconciled version of Senate Bill 536 that left the existing damages cap schedule under Virginia Code § 8.01-581.15 untouched but created a new reporting framework requiring commercial insurers and self-insured hospitals to disclose detailed malpractice claims data to legislative leaders. At the time of publication, the reconciled bill had been sent to Governor Spanberger, who had until April 13 to sign, veto, or propose amendments.  Rather than sign or veto the reconciled bill, Governor Spanberger returned it to the legislature on April 12, 2026, with a set of proposed amendments that reshaped several key aspects of the reporting framework. On April 22, the amended reconciled bill was enacted, with an effective date of July 1, 2026. Bottom Line for Virginia Healthcare Entities The medical malpractice damages cap remains unchanged, but a new reporting law takes effect on July 1, 2026, with an initial disclosure deadline of October 1, 2026. The governor’s amendments broadened who must report, redirected all disclosures through the Bureau of Insurance (the “Bureau”), strengthened confidentiality protections, and eliminated the most sensitive reporting metric. However, it also expanded the scope of the law beyond hospitals to reach a wider range of healthcare entities.  Key Changes Under the Enacted Law Expanded Scope of Reporting Entities Unlike the original bill that applied to only hospitals or health systems licensed under Virginia Code § 32.1-123 that self insure or maintain retained-risk arrangements, the enacted law applies to every “medical care facility, as defined in § 32.1-3, or other health care provider” that maintains self insurance, captive insurance, risk retention arrangements, or other retained financial risk. As a result, Virginia healthcare entities that did not consider themselves subject to the original bill should assess whether they now fall within the enacted law’s broader reach. Elimination of the Revenue-Percentage Metric The original bill required self-insured hospitals to disclose total malpractice liability expenditures expressed as a percentage of the hospital’s total patient service revenue. The enacted law eliminates this requirement, leaving three categories of disclosure: (1) the number of covered physicians and providers, (2) claims activity, and (3) malpractice expenditures. This is a meaningful change. The revenue-percentage metric would have provided a uniquely revealing window into each hospital’s financial exposure relative to its operations. Anti-Duplication Provision The enacted law adds a practical provision to prevent duplicative reporting: a healthcare provider is not required to report information that has already been included in a report submitted by the entity providing its self insurance, captive insurance, or risk retention coverage. In other words, if a hospital system’s captive insurer files the required disclosures, individual hospitals covered by that program need not file separate, duplicative reports. Hospitals should confirm with their insurers or risk retention groups whether coverage-level reporting will satisfy their individual obligations. New Insurer Disclosure Requirement For commercial insurers, the enacted law adds a requirement not found in the original bill: insurers must now disclose the identity of the named insureds under their medical malpractice policies. Hospitals insured by commercial carriers should be aware that their identity as a named insured will be part of the insurer’s disclosure to the Bureau. Centralization Through the Bureau of Insurance Perhaps the most structurally significant change involves where disclosures are submitted and how they are processed. The original bill directed all reporting to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committees for Courts of Justice, with the Clerks of each chamber making the information publicly available on the General Assembly’s website. The enacted law redirects this entire process through the State Corporation Commission’s Bureau. Disclosures must now be submitted to the Bureau in a uniform format that it prescribes that is consistent with the format of claim-reporting requirements already established under Virginia Code § 38.2-2228.2. The Bureau is responsible for compiling and analyzing the data, preparing an aggregate summary report, and submitting that report to the legislative committee leaders. Importantly, the Bureau’s aggregate report (not the raw disclosures) is what will be made publicly available on the General Assembly’s website. This is a significant structural improvement and reduces the risk of raw data being taken out of context or used selectively in public debate. Comparison by Size, Region, and Facility Type The enacted law directs the Bureau to present data, to the extent practicable, “in a manner that allows comparison among healthcare providers by size, region, or type of facility,” using anonymized or de-identified formats. While the law prohibits identifying any individual provider, hospitals should be aware that comparisons by size, region, or facility type could narrow the field enough to make identification possible as a practical matter. This provision warrants careful attention when preparing disclosures. Strengthened Confidentiality Protections The original bill stated broadly that disclosures would be confidential and exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act except in aggregate form. The enacted law replaces this with a more detailed and protective mechanism. Reporting entities may designate specific data as confidential proprietary information upon submission, provided they: (i) invoke the exclusion in writing, (ii) identify the protected material, and (iii) state the reason protection is necessary. Information properly designated as confidential will be protected from subpoena responses and public inspection. Officer Certification Requirement Disclosures must be “certified as accurate and complete by an officer of the reporting entity.” This places personal responsibility on a hospital officer for the accuracy of the filing.  Extended Initial Deadline The original bill set the first disclosure deadline as September 1, 2026. The enacted law extends this to October 1, 2026. Subsequent annual disclosures remain due on or before March 31 of each year for the preceding calendar year. Verdicts Exceeding the Cap Both the original and enacted versions require all reporting entities to submit a list of verdicts exceeding the statutory cap. Each entry must include the verdict amount, the amount recoverable after application of the cap, and the year the cause of action accrued. No personally-identifiable information may be disclosed. This provision is clearly designed to build a public record demonstrating the gap between what juries award and what plaintiffs can recover. Automatic Sunset Both versions contain the same expiration mechanism: the reporting requirements expire upon the effective date of any future legislation establishing a new limitation on recovery for medical malpractice actions. This confirms the legislative intent that the reporting framework is a temporary, data-gathering tool designed to inform future changes to the cap. Strategic Implications Virginia’s medical malpractice damages cap is intact but is under active review, and the data collected under this new law will fuel the next round of legislative efforts to increase it. With the October 1, 2026 initial deadline approaching, Virginia hospitals and healthcare entities should consider taking the following steps: 1) determine whether an institution falls within the enacted law’s expanded definition of “medical care facility” or “other healthcare provider;” 2) coordinate the production of the required materials with insurers or risk retention groups; 3) compile the necessary information for disclosure; 4) identify and designate confidential proprietary information; 5) designate a certifying officer; 6) monitor the Bureau’s prescribed format; and 7) prepare for future debates on raising the medical malpractice damages cap.

Kelsi Piatkowski (Partner-Houston, TX) and Angela Morales (Associate-Houston, TX) successfully defended their client in a suit arising from a motor vehicle accident, where multiple theories were alleged, including vicarious liability. The plaintiff advanced an increasingly utilized – but legally unrecognized – theory that cellphone application notifications sent to an independent contractor delivery driver transformed the relationship into one of employment. They also contended that the client owed a duty to prevent independent drivers from engaging in distracted driving. After extensive briefing and oral argument, including an argument that Texas law does not recognize a cause of action imposing tort liability on technology platforms for an independent driver’s decision to interact with a mobile device while driving, the Court granted our client’s motion for summary judgment. Indeed, the Court ordered all claims dismissed with prejudice.

Jacqueline Hattar (Partner-White Plains, NY) will co-host the Pace Women's Justice Center (PWJC) "Cocktails for a Cause" fundraiser on May 28, 2026, at the Barley Beach House in Rye, New York. The event supports the PWJC's commitment to increasing access to justice by providing free legal services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. The funds raised will support the PWJC’s critical services for survivors of abuse. Jackie is a long-time PWJC Advisory Board member and a past recipient of the Center's “Making A Difference” award. She also serves on the Board of Visitors at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. The PWJC, housed at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law in White Plains, New York, is a self-funded, nonprofit legal center that falls under Pace University's 501(c)(3) status. The Center conducts or participates in more than 140 training and outreach events annually, providing free legal services to some 3,500 survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. Serving Westchester and Putnam Counties, the PWJC's mission is to pursue justice for victims and prevent abuse by offering quality legal services, fostering community partnerships, and promoting education and awareness. 

BTI Consulting Group recently named Wilson Elser among the top firms for women associate satisfaction in its “BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026” report. Out of 138 firms recognized and singled out by women for cultivating associate job satisfaction, Wilson Elser was named among the 26 firms earning the “Best of the Best” distinction. BTI’s research highlights the law firms where women associates report the strongest levels of support, professional development, and confidence in their long-term career prospects. The rankings are informed by survey feedback on areas such as mentorship, training, advancement opportunities, and the extent to which firm leadership actively invests in associate success. Industry recognition in this area reflects more than reputation alone. The rankings reflect Wilson Elser’s commitment to fostering an environment where all attorneys can grow, advance, and thrive, underscoring the firm’s long-term investment in its people and culture.

Denise Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville) will be a panelist at the 2026 AAA-ICDR Construction Conference in Marina Del Rey on June 4, 2026. She will join an expert panel of arbitrators/mediators and in-house counsel to discuss the implications of labor and supply chain issues increasingly impacting the construction industry. Denise and her fellow panelists will offer insights into navigating these claims and examine how early mediation, arbitration, and dispute review boards may help parties reach resolutions before disputes escalate.

Maryan Alexander (Partner-Baltimore, MD) is quoted in the article “RIAs Explore Litigation Finance Via SEI Access,” appearing in the May 15, 2026, posting of InvestmentNews. The article discusses how alternative investment platforms are increasingly offering litigation finance opportunities to financial advisors, enabling investors to potentially profit from courtroom outcomes in lawsuits rather than relying on traditional market performance. While proponents say the asset class can deliver strong, non-market-correlated returns, many registered investment advisors remain cautious because outcomes depend heavily on legal proceedings, creating uncertainty and valuation challenges. The article also highlights growing regulatory scrutiny, particularly in New York, where new legislation aims to increase transparency and consumer protections in litigation funding arrangements. Maryan notes, “New York has moved litigation financing from the shadows to a supervised, disclosure-heavy regime, while empowering courts to probe funding when it bears on motive or misconduct,” adding that “stakeholders should prepare for regulatory compliance and more nuanced discovery practice as these changes take hold.”

Richard W. Boone Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) will offer a practical roadmap for drafting coverage letters that clearly articulate the insurer's position, comply with regulatory requirements, preserve defenses, and withstand judicial scrutiny. Designed for both insurance professionals and coverage attorneys, Richard’s presentation will draw on real-world claims-handling experience and case law from multiple jurisdictions to address common pitfalls that lead to waiver, estoppel, and bad-faith exposure. Attendees will learn how to conduct a thorough coverage analysis, from insuring agreements through exclusions, conditions, and endorsements, and how to produce clear, persuasive, and defensible coverage correspondence that serves both the insurer's interests and the insured's right to a good-faith coverage determination.

A massive 320-page class action complaint filed on May 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has the attention of the cannabis sector. The insurance professionals who underwrite it should also be paying close attention. The case, Murray et al. v. Cresco Labs Inc. et al., represents the most ambitious legal assault yet on the marketing practices of major cannabis multistate operators (MSOs). The complaint makes explicit comparisons to the litigation playbook against “Big Tobacco” in the 1990s. With claims across 12 states and spanning allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and more, this lawsuit signals a new era of litigation risk that could reshape how cannabis companies are underwritten and insured. What the Case is About Murray v. Cresco is a consumer class action brought by more than 40 named plaintiffs on behalf of recreational cannabis purchasers in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The defendants are three of the nation's largest cannabis MSOs: Cresco Labs Inc., Green Thumb Industries Inc. and Verano Holdings Corp. Each defendant is a vertically-integrated cannabis operator, meaning they cultivate, process, distribute and sell cannabis products under a portfolio of consumer-facing brands. Cresco sells under brands like Sunnyside, High Supply, FloraCal, and Wonder Wellness; Green Thumb uses brands like Rhythm, Dogwalkers, Good Green and Rise; Verano operates under Zen Leaf, Encore Edibles, BITS and Cabbage Club, among others. The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in the Northern District of Illinois, the location of the defendants’ principal places of business. The complaint explicitly carves out claims related to physician-prescribed medical cannabis, focusing solely on adult-use purchases. A companion case targeting Curaleaf Holdings was filed the same day in the District of Connecticut. The Central Narrative Plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or should have known, that cannabis products pose serious mental and physical health risks, yet chose to market those same products as safe, therapeutic, and even medicinal. The complaint paints a picture of an industry that borrowed from Big Tobacco's playbook, allegedly sponsoring less-than-rigorous research to generate consumer friendly health claims while burying the mounting scientific evidence of harm. As the complaint puts it, the defendants “deceptively marketed cannabis as medicine capable of alleviating or treating the very mental health disorders” they “knew or should have known were caused or exacerbated by the use of their products.” The Liability Theories The core liability theory is the federal RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants operated an “enterprise” engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including dealing in controlled substances illegal under federal law, mail fraud, wire fraud, and monetary transactions in criminally derived property. The RICO claim is significant because it opens the door to potential treble damages, meaning any actual damages could be tripled, plus attorneys' fees. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn confirmed that RICO can apply to economic harms tied to mislabeled cannabis products. The complaint also asserts state-specific consumer protection claims in all 12 states where the representative plaintiffs reside. These include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, New York's General Business Law Section 349, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and analogous statutes in each remaining jurisdiction. Across all states, plaintiffs argued that defendants made affirmative misrepresentations about health benefits while concealing known risks, inducing consumers to purchase products they otherwise would not have bought, or to overpay for them. The complaint further alleges breach of express and implied warranties under each state’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. By representing their products as treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, pain and other conditions, defendants allegedly created and violated express warranties that the products would perform as described. Implied warranty claims assert that cannabis products marketed as wellness aids were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” Finally, negligent misrepresentation claims target the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in communicating health information to consumers. The Health Science at the Heart of the Case The factual backbone of the complaint runs over a hundred pages of citations to various scientific studies and papers. The plaintiffs reference research alleging connections of cannabis use to psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and anxiety. The complaint cites a 2025 study finding that states with open recreational dispensaries experienced a 12 percent increase in admissions to state mental health facilities for psychotic disorders. A 2021 Danish study is also referenced for its finding that schizophrenia cases associated with cannabis use disorder increased 300 percent to 400 percent over 20 years as potency doubled. The complaint also cites cardiovascular studies, including a 2025 meta-analysis that reportedly found cannabis use doubled the risk of cardiovascular death and increased stroke risk by 20 percent. Another cited study estimates the odds of heart attack among cannabis users at more than six times higher than non-users. The complaint also highlights prenatal risks, citing a 2025 review linking cannabis use during pregnancy to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) and cannabis use disorder (CUD) are include in the complaint’s litany of health harms. Focus on Industry Awareness The complaint emphasizes that these health risks are not new discoveries. It alleges that the defendants had “actual and constructive knowledge” of these dangers, derived from years of publicly available peer-reviewed studies and governmental advisories, yet “failed to adequately warn their customers.” Instead, plaintiffs contend the defendants went in the opposite direction by marketing cannabis as a remedy for the conditions it allegedly makes worse. The Playbook is Growing The lead attorney in Murray v. Cresco, Patrick Kenneally, is a former Illinois county prosecutor with a track record of taking on cannabis companies. In 2023, he compelled dispensaries in McHenry County, Illinois to post in-store warnings about cannabis-related mental health risks, a first in the country, and to fund a billboard campaign linking cannabis to suicide and schizophrenia. An earlier, similar lawsuit against Verano was dismissed in March 2026, but the new complaint appears broader and more detailed. A spokesperson for Verano told MJBizDaily that the suit “mirrors claims that have been rejected by courts in similar legal actions against multistate operators in the industry earlier this year.” Whether the 320-page complaint overcomes those defenses remains to be seen. Rescheduling Adds Fuel The timing is notable. On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an order rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Greater federal legitimacy may bring greater legal exposure. Rescheduling is likely to expand market access and raise expectations for product safety and accurate labeling, making negligence and consumer protection claims more likely for compliance lapses. Canada Offers a Preview Canada legalized recreational cannabis nationally in 2018, and its litigation experience since then is instructive. The country has seen a wave of product liability class actions, including Downton v. Organigram Holdings, the first certified cannabis product liability class action in Canada, involving pesticide contamination. Proposed actions have also targeted major Canadian producers over inadequate risk disclosures related to CHS. The pattern is consistent with what now appears to be emerging in the United States – consumer litigation follows the market opening up. Why This Matters for Cannabis Insurers For insurance professionals, Murray v. Cresco crystallizes several risks that the industry has long discussed in the abstract. The case represents a concrete, large-scale litigation event with the potential for enormous exposure. The RICO claim alone, with its treble-damage multiplier, could transform a significant jury verdict into a catastrophic one. Class certification across 12 states would dramatically multiply the defendant pool and the aggregate damages. The underwriting on cannabis product liability has, to date, focused on potential contamination, mislabeling, and the occasional exposure or ingestion-based bodily injury claim. Murray v. Cresco, however, introduces a different species of claim, one rooted in marketing conduct rather than product defect in the traditional sense. Currently, the insurance industry is largely insulated from large consumer class actions like Murray v. Cresco. Many cannabis policies contain broad health-hazard exclusions, which could deny coverage for claims involving specified adverse health effects from cannabis products. Class action exclusions are common, as are exclusions for statutory penalties like treble damages under RICO and state consumer protection awards. RICO-based claims are also vulnerable to criminal-acts exclusions or specific carve-outs for racketeering-related conduct. Coverage Disputes on the Horizon Notwithstanding this insulation, insurers should expect that defendants in cases like Murray will tender claims under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies, products completed operations policies, directors and officers (D&O) policies, and any specialty cannabis coverage they hold. The question of whether deceptive marketing and failure-to-warn allegations fall within a products-completed operations hazard, an advertising injury provision, or some other coverage grant will likely be fiercely contested. What Underwriters Should be Asking Going forward, underwriters writing cannabis risks should scrutinize their insureds' marketing practices with the same focus they currently bring to product testing and labeling. Documented testing integrity, warning protocols, supply-chain oversight, and recall history are all important along with marketing discipline. Policies should be reviewed for RICO and state consumer statute exposure. Underwriters should pay attention to emerging scientific studies on the health effect of cannabis use. Insureds that continue to make unsupported health claims, the kind at the center of Murray v. Cresco, present a different risk profile than those that keep their marketing factual and scientifically supported. Conclusion Murray v. Cresco may or may not succeed on the merits. Defendants will raise formidable challenges, including preemption arguments, standing issues, the difficulty of class certification across a dozen state consumer-protection regimes, causation defenses and the still-evolving science around cannabis and health. But the complaint’s sheer scale, its RICO backbone, and its explicit comparisons to Big Tobacco litigation signal that the era of treating cannabis product liability as a hypothetical future risk is over. For insurers and their cannabis policyholders, the takeaway is practical and immediate. Marketing claims are now a front-line litigation target, and the industry needs to treat them accordingly. Risk-mitigation programs should include compliance audits of all consumer-facing health claims, robust product warnings modeled on the warnings that accompany over-the-counter medical products, and honest internal assessments of what the science supports. Meanwhile, insurers should be reviewing policy language to understand their own exposure in the event that lawsuits like this one multiply. This article was published in the May 18, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) and Taylor Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) combined to obtain a judgment in favor of a boat owner before the U.S. District Court for Utah. The Salt Lake federal court entered judgment in exoneration of the owner in connection with a fire that occurred on October 26, 2023, on Lake Powell, causing damage to the vessel along with the surrounding dock infrastructure and other vessels. It was suspected that the fire was caused by lithium-ion batteries. While no one was on board the vessel at the time of the incident, neighboring vessel owners set the boat adrift after observing smoke billowing from its windows. Unfortunately, winds blew the vessel from one part of the marina to another, resulting in significant damage to the marina's dock, other vessels and surrounding property. Claimants in the proceeding included the marina operator, which had asserted claims for damages related to dock repairs and vessel salvage costs. With no evidence proving the vessel owner had any knowledge of the cause of the fire, the marine withdrew its claims. With the Court's exoneration order, the vessel owner petitioner has been found free of liability, and the action is now closed.

Nevada’s Supreme Court decided in Powers v. Dist. Ct. that NRS 629.620 violated Nevada’s separation of powers and is unconstitutional. This has immediate implications for clients defending traumatic brain injury cases in Nevada. The Decision The statute was sponsored by the local plaintiffs' bar and purported to regulate physical and mental examinations, replacing Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 35(NRCP). This was a second attempt, as the Supreme Court also deemed an earlier statute, NRS 52.380, unconstitutional for the same reasons. Both statutes upset the balance in tort litigation, violated separation of powers, and negatively affected defendants' ability to defend themselves. Powers also addressed recurring questions concerning neuropsychological examinations. These examinations generate raw data. In practice, courts had ruled this raw data could be exchanged only between the parties’ neuropsychologists. Here, the plaintiff wanted his counsel to have access to the raw data generated from the examination but without the expense of hiring his own neuropsychologist. The Supreme Court concluded “the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting disclosure of the raw data to Bueno’s counsel, subject to a protective order.” The Court concluded “the generalized fears of some neuropsychologists that nonpsychologists, if they are provided raw data, will violate protective orders, misuse the tests and irreparably compromise the validity of future testing, is not sufficient” to support further, narrower restrictions. Finally, Powers addressed the plaintiff’s request to audio record the examination. Applying NRCP 35, “generally, recording is only proper when the court finds special circumstances amounting to good cause for the requests.” These special circumstances “are rare and typically include extreme situations….” The plaintiff’s “generalized fear that the neuropsychologist might distort the test results in front of the jury” was not sufficient. Michael Lowry (Partner-Las Vegas) submitted an amicus brief for Las Vegas Defense Lawyers asserting that NRS 629.620 was unconstitutional. The brief also addressed problems with the district court’s order implementing neuropsychological testing requirements. Implications for Pending Cases First, NRS 629.620 is inapplicable to litigated cases. This restores balance and discretion to the district courts. Removing NRS 629.620 also helps defendants in brain injury cases because the statute made it nearly impossible to obtain a neuropsychological examination. These requests are instead governed by NRCP 35. The Court, however, ruled narrowly and did not address whether NRS 629.620 may be applicable in other scenarios, such as pre-litigation examinations, UM/UIM claims, worker’s compensation claims, and other settings. This may not be the end of this years-long dispute, though. Like after the Supreme Court’s Lyft v. Dist. Ct. decision, NRS 629.620’s supporters might return to the legislature in the coming session and attempt to modify the statute in some way to achieve their goals but not violate separation of powers. Secondarily, though, defendants may still have a difficult time finding neuropsychologists willing to perform examinations. As a result of years of research, the neuropsychological community restricts the raw data generated from testing. It can be provided only to other neuropsychologists for their review. Powers, however, ruled that a party cannot be forced to hire an expert, and the district court adequately addressed the community’s confidentiality concerns by entering a protective order. Powers did not discuss NAC 641.234(3) and (4), which have the effect of expressly prohibiting such disclosure. The result is conflict between the neuropsychologist’s regulatory obligations and the terms of a court’s order. It seems likely this conflict will generate more motion work and writ petitions in future cases.

A prior analysis examined the Virginia legislature’s rejection of a sweeping proposal to overhaul the state’s medical malpractice damages cap. That proposal would have doubled the cap from $3 million to $6 million, allowed prejudgment interest, expanded the statute of limitations, and imposed new insurance requirements on nursing homes. Instead, the legislature passed a narrower, reconciled version of Senate Bill 536 that left the existing damages cap schedule under Virginia Code § 8.01-581.15 untouched but created a new reporting framework requiring commercial insurers and self-insured hospitals to disclose detailed malpractice claims data to legislative leaders. At the time of publication, the reconciled bill had been sent to Governor Spanberger, who had until April 13 to sign, veto, or propose amendments.  Rather than sign or veto the reconciled bill, Governor Spanberger returned it to the legislature on April 12, 2026, with a set of proposed amendments that reshaped several key aspects of the reporting framework. On April 22, the amended reconciled bill was enacted, with an effective date of July 1, 2026. Bottom Line for Virginia Healthcare Entities The medical malpractice damages cap remains unchanged, but a new reporting law takes effect on July 1, 2026, with an initial disclosure deadline of October 1, 2026. The governor’s amendments broadened who must report, redirected all disclosures through the Bureau of Insurance (the “Bureau”), strengthened confidentiality protections, and eliminated the most sensitive reporting metric. However, it also expanded the scope of the law beyond hospitals to reach a wider range of healthcare entities.  Key Changes Under the Enacted Law Expanded Scope of Reporting Entities Unlike the original bill that applied to only hospitals or health systems licensed under Virginia Code § 32.1-123 that self insure or maintain retained-risk arrangements, the enacted law applies to every “medical care facility, as defined in § 32.1-3, or other health care provider” that maintains self insurance, captive insurance, risk retention arrangements, or other retained financial risk. As a result, Virginia healthcare entities that did not consider themselves subject to the original bill should assess whether they now fall within the enacted law’s broader reach. Elimination of the Revenue-Percentage Metric The original bill required self-insured hospitals to disclose total malpractice liability expenditures expressed as a percentage of the hospital’s total patient service revenue. The enacted law eliminates this requirement, leaving three categories of disclosure: (1) the number of covered physicians and providers, (2) claims activity, and (3) malpractice expenditures. This is a meaningful change. The revenue-percentage metric would have provided a uniquely revealing window into each hospital’s financial exposure relative to its operations. Anti-Duplication Provision The enacted law adds a practical provision to prevent duplicative reporting: a healthcare provider is not required to report information that has already been included in a report submitted by the entity providing its self insurance, captive insurance, or risk retention coverage. In other words, if a hospital system’s captive insurer files the required disclosures, individual hospitals covered by that program need not file separate, duplicative reports. Hospitals should confirm with their insurers or risk retention groups whether coverage-level reporting will satisfy their individual obligations. New Insurer Disclosure Requirement For commercial insurers, the enacted law adds a requirement not found in the original bill: insurers must now disclose the identity of the named insureds under their medical malpractice policies. Hospitals insured by commercial carriers should be aware that their identity as a named insured will be part of the insurer’s disclosure to the Bureau. Centralization Through the Bureau of Insurance Perhaps the most structurally significant change involves where disclosures are submitted and how they are processed. The original bill directed all reporting to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committees for Courts of Justice, with the Clerks of each chamber making the information publicly available on the General Assembly’s website. The enacted law redirects this entire process through the State Corporation Commission’s Bureau. Disclosures must now be submitted to the Bureau in a uniform format that it prescribes that is consistent with the format of claim-reporting requirements already established under Virginia Code § 38.2-2228.2. The Bureau is responsible for compiling and analyzing the data, preparing an aggregate summary report, and submitting that report to the legislative committee leaders. Importantly, the Bureau’s aggregate report (not the raw disclosures) is what will be made publicly available on the General Assembly’s website. This is a significant structural improvement and reduces the risk of raw data being taken out of context or used selectively in public debate. Comparison by Size, Region, and Facility Type The enacted law directs the Bureau to present data, to the extent practicable, “in a manner that allows comparison among healthcare providers by size, region, or type of facility,” using anonymized or de-identified formats. While the law prohibits identifying any individual provider, hospitals should be aware that comparisons by size, region, or facility type could narrow the field enough to make identification possible as a practical matter. This provision warrants careful attention when preparing disclosures. Strengthened Confidentiality Protections The original bill stated broadly that disclosures would be confidential and exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act except in aggregate form. The enacted law replaces this with a more detailed and protective mechanism. Reporting entities may designate specific data as confidential proprietary information upon submission, provided they: (i) invoke the exclusion in writing, (ii) identify the protected material, and (iii) state the reason protection is necessary. Information properly designated as confidential will be protected from subpoena responses and public inspection. Officer Certification Requirement Disclosures must be “certified as accurate and complete by an officer of the reporting entity.” This places personal responsibility on a hospital officer for the accuracy of the filing.  Extended Initial Deadline The original bill set the first disclosure deadline as September 1, 2026. The enacted law extends this to October 1, 2026. Subsequent annual disclosures remain due on or before March 31 of each year for the preceding calendar year. Verdicts Exceeding the Cap Both the original and enacted versions require all reporting entities to submit a list of verdicts exceeding the statutory cap. Each entry must include the verdict amount, the amount recoverable after application of the cap, and the year the cause of action accrued. No personally-identifiable information may be disclosed. This provision is clearly designed to build a public record demonstrating the gap between what juries award and what plaintiffs can recover. Automatic Sunset Both versions contain the same expiration mechanism: the reporting requirements expire upon the effective date of any future legislation establishing a new limitation on recovery for medical malpractice actions. This confirms the legislative intent that the reporting framework is a temporary, data-gathering tool designed to inform future changes to the cap. Strategic Implications Virginia’s medical malpractice damages cap is intact but is under active review, and the data collected under this new law will fuel the next round of legislative efforts to increase it. With the October 1, 2026 initial deadline approaching, Virginia hospitals and healthcare entities should consider taking the following steps: 1) determine whether an institution falls within the enacted law’s expanded definition of “medical care facility” or “other healthcare provider;” 2) coordinate the production of the required materials with insurers or risk retention groups; 3) compile the necessary information for disclosure; 4) identify and designate confidential proprietary information; 5) designate a certifying officer; 6) monitor the Bureau’s prescribed format; and 7) prepare for future debates on raising the medical malpractice damages cap.

Kelsi Piatkowski (Partner-Houston, TX) and Angela Morales (Associate-Houston, TX) successfully defended their client in a suit arising from a motor vehicle accident, where multiple theories were alleged, including vicarious liability. The plaintiff advanced an increasingly utilized – but legally unrecognized – theory that cellphone application notifications sent to an independent contractor delivery driver transformed the relationship into one of employment. They also contended that the client owed a duty to prevent independent drivers from engaging in distracted driving. After extensive briefing and oral argument, including an argument that Texas law does not recognize a cause of action imposing tort liability on technology platforms for an independent driver’s decision to interact with a mobile device while driving, the Court granted our client’s motion for summary judgment. Indeed, the Court ordered all claims dismissed with prejudice.