U.S. SUPREME COURT
Prepared cert petition challenging adverse 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court in interpreting Section 8 regulations; following issuance of CVSG order, met with Solicitor General’s office and the entire government team representing numerous federal agencies; opposed five-member team at Jones Day at the cert stage in addition to preparing extensive memos to the SG; prepared and filed two sets of additional briefs; conducted extensive amicus solicitation campaign and obtained amicus briefs from key industry players. Click here to view the briefs.

Represented prisoner in pro bono case challenging North Carolina prison policies under RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause of the federal Constitution: Ben-Levi v. Brown, 136 S.Ct. 930 (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari and rejecting mootness defense, consistent with reply arguments presented on client’s behalf).

Prepared cert petition challenging nineteenth century Supreme Court cases that had refused to incorporate the Seventh Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply to the States. Click here to view the cert petition.

Prepared cert petition on behalf of San Quentin inmate challenging constitutionality of California statutes governing civil rights claims for prisoner abuse. Click here to view the cert petition.

Prepared cert petition challenging statutory evidentiary presumptions based on the Due Process Clause in addition to challenging the California Supreme Court’s decision interpreting the Confrontation Clause in the same criminal case.

Prepared cert petition in First Amendment case regarding the application of California’s right-of-publicity statute to non-celebrity plaintiffs. 

Marin Housing Authority v. Reilly (No. 20-1046)

Hamilton v. Cabral (No. 17-389)

Ben-Levi v. Brown (No. 14-10186)

Goldsmith v. California (No. 14-495)

Siry Investments, L.P. v. Neman (No. 12-1446)

Ingerson v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (No. 02-1868)

STATE AND FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
Successfully sought interlocutory, discretionary appellate review by the Ninth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of a federal agency’s structure based on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s creation in violation of the Appointments Clause (one of two such petitions granted by any appellate court; case subsequently settled on appeal after motion for withdrawal granted). Click here to read the appellate court's order, the petition, the motion for interlocutory appeal and the reply.

Successfully represented lender in the California Supreme Court in complex anti-deficiency case and convinced the high court to overrule 27 years of precedent (retained after review was granted to prepare merits briefing).

Obtained reinstatement of pro bono client’s dismissed lawsuit after preparing merits briefs in the California Supreme Court on behalf of appellant challenging prison conditions in Pleasant Valley State Prison.

Obtained $16 million judgment against real estate tycoons in connection with securities fraud on remand after reversal of client’s original $1.8 million judgment in 17-year-old partnership lawsuit; judgment affirmed while modified by intermediate court; cross-appeal pending.

Obtained reversal of $7.8 million jury verdict awarding well-known plaintiff/attorney $5,000 hourly rate in quantum meruit action against his former client; retained after entry of verdict to prepare post-trial motions and prosecute appeal.

Obtained writ of mandate in the first instance after trial court denied summary judgment motion in major personal injury case where plaintiffs had demanded $25 million.

Represented CGL carrier on appeal where putative insured sued various insurers for recovery of remediation costs of nearly $700 million; handled appeal after jury awarded seven-figure judgment against former client by preparing cross-appellant’s opening brief; judgment reversed by court of appeal (subsequently review granted by California Supreme Court on other issues).

Prepared petition for review challenging $10 million jury verdict upheld by appellate court in product liability case.

Represented equipment lessor as the plaintiff/respondent on appeal and successfully defended terminating sanctions awarded in client's favor.

Successfully defended various law firms in unrelated malicious prosecution cases. 

PUBLISHED CASES
California Supreme Court proceedings as counsel of record: Reilly v. Marin Housing Auth. (2020) 10 Cal.5th 583; Black Sky Capital v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156; Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141; Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474; DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968; Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal.5th 124; In re Garcia on Admission (2014) 58 Cal.4th 440; People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal.4th 901; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258.

Court of Appeal proceedings as counsel of record: Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098; Gray v. Superior Court (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1159; Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 608; Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 725; Chodos v. Borman (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 76; Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692; Michel v. Palos Verdes Network Group, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 756; Business to Business Markets, Inc. v. Zurich Specialties London Limited (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 165; Watts Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1029; People v. Acevedo (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 195 (client’s conviction reversed). 

POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
Prepared and argued post-trial motions after entry of adverse $8.3 million judgment; prepared and argued opposition to post-trial motions challenging $16 million judgment rendered in client’s favor; prepared and argued post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure jury verdict based on 21-day San Francisco trial; prepared post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure verdict in legal malpractice case; prepared and argued post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure judgment in product liability case.

Representative Matters

U.S. SUPREME COURT
Prepared cert petition challenging adverse 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court in interpreting Section 8 regulations; following issuance of CVSG order, met with Solicitor General’s office and the entire government team representing numerous federal agencies; opposed five-member team at Jones Day at the cert stage in addition to preparing extensive memos to the SG; prepared and filed two sets of additional briefs; conducted extensive amicus solicitation campaign and obtained amicus briefs from key industry players. Click here to view the briefs.

Represented prisoner in pro bono case challenging North Carolina prison policies under RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause of the federal Constitution: Ben-Levi v. Brown, 136 S.Ct. 930 (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari and rejecting mootness defense, consistent with reply arguments presented on client’s behalf).

Prepared cert petition challenging nineteenth century Supreme Court cases that had refused to incorporate the Seventh Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply to the States. Click here to view the cert petition.

Prepared cert petition on behalf of San Quentin inmate challenging constitutionality of California statutes governing civil rights claims for prisoner abuse. Click here to view the cert petition.

Prepared cert petition challenging statutory evidentiary presumptions based on the Due Process Clause in addition to challenging the California Supreme Court’s decision interpreting the Confrontation Clause in the same criminal case.

Prepared cert petition in First Amendment case regarding the application of California’s right-of-publicity statute to non-celebrity plaintiffs. 

Marin Housing Authority v. Reilly (No. 20-1046)

Hamilton v. Cabral (No. 17-389)

Ben-Levi v. Brown (No. 14-10186)

Goldsmith v. California (No. 14-495)

Siry Investments, L.P. v. Neman (No. 12-1446)

Ingerson v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (No. 02-1868)

STATE AND FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
Successfully sought interlocutory, discretionary appellate review by the Ninth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of a federal agency’s structure based on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s creation in violation of the Appointments Clause (one of two such petitions granted by any appellate court; case subsequently settled on appeal after motion for withdrawal granted). Click here to read the appellate court's order, the petition, the motion for interlocutory appeal and the reply.

Successfully represented lender in the California Supreme Court in complex anti-deficiency case and convinced the high court to overrule 27 years of precedent (retained after review was granted to prepare merits briefing).

Obtained reinstatement of pro bono client’s dismissed lawsuit after preparing merits briefs in the California Supreme Court on behalf of appellant challenging prison conditions in Pleasant Valley State Prison.

Obtained $16 million judgment against real estate tycoons in connection with securities fraud on remand after reversal of client’s original $1.8 million judgment in 17-year-old partnership lawsuit; judgment affirmed while modified by intermediate court; cross-appeal pending.

Obtained reversal of $7.8 million jury verdict awarding well-known plaintiff/attorney $5,000 hourly rate in quantum meruit action against his former client; retained after entry of verdict to prepare post-trial motions and prosecute appeal.

Obtained writ of mandate in the first instance after trial court denied summary judgment motion in major personal injury case where plaintiffs had demanded $25 million.

Represented CGL carrier on appeal where putative insured sued various insurers for recovery of remediation costs of nearly $700 million; handled appeal after jury awarded seven-figure judgment against former client by preparing cross-appellant’s opening brief; judgment reversed by court of appeal (subsequently review granted by California Supreme Court on other issues).

Prepared petition for review challenging $10 million jury verdict upheld by appellate court in product liability case.

Represented equipment lessor as the plaintiff/respondent on appeal and successfully defended terminating sanctions awarded in client's favor.

Successfully defended various law firms in unrelated malicious prosecution cases. 

PUBLISHED CASES
California Supreme Court proceedings as counsel of record: Reilly v. Marin Housing Auth. (2020) 10 Cal.5th 583; Black Sky Capital v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156; Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141; Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474; DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968; Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal.5th 124; In re Garcia on Admission (2014) 58 Cal.4th 440; People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal.4th 901; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258.

Court of Appeal proceedings as counsel of record: Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098; Gray v. Superior Court (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1159; Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 608; Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 725; Chodos v. Borman (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 76; Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692; Michel v. Palos Verdes Network Group, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 756; Business to Business Markets, Inc. v. Zurich Specialties London Limited (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 165; Watts Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1029; People v. Acevedo (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 195 (client’s conviction reversed). 

POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
Prepared and argued post-trial motions after entry of adverse $8.3 million judgment; prepared and argued opposition to post-trial motions challenging $16 million judgment rendered in client’s favor; prepared and argued post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure jury verdict based on 21-day San Francisco trial; prepared post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure verdict in legal malpractice case; prepared and argued post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure judgment in product liability case.

Events

U.S. SUPREME COURT
Prepared cert petition challenging adverse 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court in interpreting Section 8 regulations; following issuance of CVSG order, met with Solicitor General’s office and the entire government team representing numerous federal agencies; opposed five-member team at Jones Day at the cert stage in addition to preparing extensive memos to the SG; prepared and filed two sets of additional briefs; conducted extensive amicus solicitation campaign and obtained amicus briefs from key industry players. Click here to view the briefs.

Represented prisoner in pro bono case challenging North Carolina prison policies under RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause of the federal Constitution: Ben-Levi v. Brown, 136 S.Ct. 930 (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari and rejecting mootness defense, consistent with reply arguments presented on client’s behalf).

Prepared cert petition challenging nineteenth century Supreme Court cases that had refused to incorporate the Seventh Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply to the States. Click here to view the cert petition.

Prepared cert petition on behalf of San Quentin inmate challenging constitutionality of California statutes governing civil rights claims for prisoner abuse. Click here to view the cert petition.

Prepared cert petition challenging statutory evidentiary presumptions based on the Due Process Clause in addition to challenging the California Supreme Court’s decision interpreting the Confrontation Clause in the same criminal case.

Prepared cert petition in First Amendment case regarding the application of California’s right-of-publicity statute to non-celebrity plaintiffs. 

Marin Housing Authority v. Reilly (No. 20-1046)

Hamilton v. Cabral (No. 17-389)

Ben-Levi v. Brown (No. 14-10186)

Goldsmith v. California (No. 14-495)

Siry Investments, L.P. v. Neman (No. 12-1446)

Ingerson v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (No. 02-1868)

STATE AND FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
Successfully sought interlocutory, discretionary appellate review by the Ninth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of a federal agency’s structure based on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s creation in violation of the Appointments Clause (one of two such petitions granted by any appellate court; case subsequently settled on appeal after motion for withdrawal granted). Click here to read the appellate court's order, the petition, the motion for interlocutory appeal and the reply.

Successfully represented lender in the California Supreme Court in complex anti-deficiency case and convinced the high court to overrule 27 years of precedent (retained after review was granted to prepare merits briefing).

Obtained reinstatement of pro bono client’s dismissed lawsuit after preparing merits briefs in the California Supreme Court on behalf of appellant challenging prison conditions in Pleasant Valley State Prison.

Obtained $16 million judgment against real estate tycoons in connection with securities fraud on remand after reversal of client’s original $1.8 million judgment in 17-year-old partnership lawsuit; judgment affirmed while modified by intermediate court; cross-appeal pending.

Obtained reversal of $7.8 million jury verdict awarding well-known plaintiff/attorney $5,000 hourly rate in quantum meruit action against his former client; retained after entry of verdict to prepare post-trial motions and prosecute appeal.

Obtained writ of mandate in the first instance after trial court denied summary judgment motion in major personal injury case where plaintiffs had demanded $25 million.

Represented CGL carrier on appeal where putative insured sued various insurers for recovery of remediation costs of nearly $700 million; handled appeal after jury awarded seven-figure judgment against former client by preparing cross-appellant’s opening brief; judgment reversed by court of appeal (subsequently review granted by California Supreme Court on other issues).

Prepared petition for review challenging $10 million jury verdict upheld by appellate court in product liability case.

Represented equipment lessor as the plaintiff/respondent on appeal and successfully defended terminating sanctions awarded in client's favor.

Successfully defended various law firms in unrelated malicious prosecution cases. 

PUBLISHED CASES
California Supreme Court proceedings as counsel of record: Reilly v. Marin Housing Auth. (2020) 10 Cal.5th 583; Black Sky Capital v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156; Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141; Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474; DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968; Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal.5th 124; In re Garcia on Admission (2014) 58 Cal.4th 440; People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal.4th 901; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258.

Court of Appeal proceedings as counsel of record: Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098; Gray v. Superior Court (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1159; Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 608; Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 725; Chodos v. Borman (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 76; Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692; Michel v. Palos Verdes Network Group, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 756; Business to Business Markets, Inc. v. Zurich Specialties London Limited (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 165; Watts Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1029; People v. Acevedo (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 195 (client’s conviction reversed). 

POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
Prepared and argued post-trial motions after entry of adverse $8.3 million judgment; prepared and argued opposition to post-trial motions challenging $16 million judgment rendered in client’s favor; prepared and argued post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure jury verdict based on 21-day San Francisco trial; prepared post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure verdict in legal malpractice case; prepared and argued post-trial motions to challenge seven-figure judgment in product liability case.

Firm Highlights

News
Motta Elected Vice Chair of ADR Section of Kentucky Bar Association
Denise M. Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) was elected as Vice Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the Kentucky Bar Association with a term beginning June 31, 2026, and continuing through 2028. Denise is currently the Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for DRI, is a Panel Member for the American Arbitration Association (Construction and Commercial), and regularly serves as a mediator and arbitrator.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Publications
DOJ Reschedules Medical Marijuana: Implications for Insurance Coverage, Capacity, and Compliance
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult-use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, all of which add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. The FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products.  The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now, FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well-capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal/state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing of rescheduling and rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up.  The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines.  This article was published in the April 28, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.
Read more
Client Wins
Peticca and Friedberg Win Summary Judgment Dismissal of Med Mal Case with Workers’ Compensation Defense
Christopher Peticca (Associate-White Plains, NY) and Alan Friedberg (Senior Counsel-White Plains, NY) obtained summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, securing dismissal of a medical malpractice action against Wilson Elser’s clients, an orthopedic surgeon and his practice. The plaintiff, who sustained a workplace injury years earlier, underwent more than six years of treatment under workers’ compensation coverage before undergoing a total knee replacement performed by our clients. She alleged that the surgery was negligently performed, claiming the components were oversized and improperly aligned. In moving for summary judgment, Chris and Alan argued that the surgery was performed in accordance with the standard of care and that recovery was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff had already been compensated for the same injuries. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an expert affirmation challenging the size and alignment of the knee replacement components, as well as case law in support of her position that her workers’ compensation claims did not bar the malpractice action because the subject knee replacement surgery caused her additional harm. On reply, Chris and Alan prevailed on both arguments, demonstrating that subsequent treatment records and radiological films confirmed the components were properly aligned and installed, and that the plaintiff’s expert ignored material evidence in rendering an opinion to the contrary. They further relied on findings from multiple non-party medical providers within the workers’ compensation records to establish that the clients’ treatment did not cause any additional harm to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court held that summary judgment was warranted on two distinct grounds and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. 
Read more
Events
The Butterfly Effect: Tips for Weathering a Litigation Storm
Jim Kiser (Of Counsel-Dallas, TX) will lead a CLE panel presentation titled “The Butterfly Effect: Tips for Weathering a Litigation Storm” at the Aviation Insurance Association’s Annual Conference, held May 4-7, 2026, in Dallas, Texas. Jim, joined by fellow aviation attorneys and an aviation claims adjuster, will discuss how seemingly insignificant decisions at the beginning of aviation litigation can dramatically impact the case’s course. The panel members will provide suggestions to minimize or eliminate the negative impacts of turbulence and help ensure a smoother, more direct litigation journey with positive results.
Read more
Events
Legal Issues During The Customer's Journey
Gregory Lee (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been invited to speak on the panel “Legal Issues During the Customer’s Journey” at the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) National Convention, to be held May 4-7, 2026, at the La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, California. Alongside fellow ski area defense attorneys, Greg will address the legal issues customers may encounter in their interactions with ski resorts, from pre-arrival experiences to on-mountain visits and post-incident matters.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Announces 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Recipient
New York, NY — National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the recipient of the 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship, named for the firm’s Chair Emeritus, a founding member of the firm.  This year’s recipient is Amaya Lester, daughter of Weinstock St Fleur, IT Regional Supervisor for the firm’s New York office. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or upon graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university. “We are pleased to continue the firm’s scholarship in honor of Thomas W. Wilson Sr. for the 2026–2027 year,” said Danial McMahon, the firm’s chairman. “Amaya truly embodies the values that the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship was established to honor. We are delighted to recognize her exceptional achievements and commitment to making a positive impact in her community. It is my pleasure to congratulate Weinstock, Amaya, and their family.” Amaya is a senior at Mercer County Technical Schools Health Sciences Academy in Trenton, New Jersey. She is a member of the National Honor Society and the National Technical Honor Society and has dedicated four years to her school's swim team while remaining actively involved in various school clubs. Deeply committed to community service, Amaya volunteers through her school's Red Cross Chapter and serves as a Student Ambassador at Mercer County Technical Schools. She is also a member of Glamour Girls, a group that visits nursing homes to build meaningful connections with elderly individuals, and she regularly volunteers at her church. Demonstrating both initiative and leadership, Amaya founded the Green Paws: Veterinary and Environmental Club at her school, inspiring her peers to make a meaningful impact on animal welfare and environmental stewardship. This initiative reflects her passion for these causes – interests she will continue to pursue as she begins her studies in Veterinary Science at Rowan University this fall. About the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program In 2010, the firm's partnership established the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program to support the college education of selected award recipients who are children of current, full-time Wilson Elser employees. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university.
Read more
Client Wins
Motta and Bokeno Prevail at Arbitration in High-Stakes Construction Defect Case
Denise Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) and Andrew-John Bokeno (Associate-Louisville, KY) obtained summary judgment and dismissal of Wilson Elser’s client, a roofing and sheet metal company, in an arbitration arising from a construction defect claim. The property owner alleged that our client negligently installed and repaired the roof of three apartment buildings, resulting in leaks and a partial collapse of the parapet wall. The owner further alleged damages exceeding $1.7 million. Denise and AJ argued that the owner's claims were barred by the 5-year statute of limitations and the economic loss doctrine. The arbitrator agreed and dismissed the owner's claims.
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
Events
Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language
Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY), Stephanie Reda (Partner-White Plains, NY), and Martin Ween (Senior Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language on May 5, 2026. This presentation will focus on the importance of carefully drafting insurance policies, endorsements, and applications to avoid legal disputes regarding meaning and interpretation. The session will highlight key themes of coverage disputes over policy interpretation and ambiguous words and phrases. The presenters will share caselaw examples and address how counsel can assist in limiting the risks of coverage disputes.
Read more
Publications
DOJ Reschedules Medical Marijuana: Implications for Insurance Coverage, Capacity, and Compliance
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult-use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, all of which add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. The FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products.  The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now, FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well-capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal/state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing of rescheduling and rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up.  The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines.  This article was published in the April 28, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
News
Motta Elected Vice Chair of ADR Section of Kentucky Bar Association
Denise M. Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) was elected as Vice Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the Kentucky Bar Association with a term beginning June 31, 2026, and continuing through 2028. Denise is currently the Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for DRI, is a Panel Member for the American Arbitration Association (Construction and Commercial), and regularly serves as a mediator and arbitrator.
Read more
Client Wins
Peticca and Friedberg Win Summary Judgment Dismissal of Med Mal Case with Workers’ Compensation Defense
Christopher Peticca (Associate-White Plains, NY) and Alan Friedberg (Senior Counsel-White Plains, NY) obtained summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, securing dismissal of a medical malpractice action against Wilson Elser’s clients, an orthopedic surgeon and his practice. The plaintiff, who sustained a workplace injury years earlier, underwent more than six years of treatment under workers’ compensation coverage before undergoing a total knee replacement performed by our clients. She alleged that the surgery was negligently performed, claiming the components were oversized and improperly aligned. In moving for summary judgment, Chris and Alan argued that the surgery was performed in accordance with the standard of care and that recovery was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff had already been compensated for the same injuries. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an expert affirmation challenging the size and alignment of the knee replacement components, as well as case law in support of her position that her workers’ compensation claims did not bar the malpractice action because the subject knee replacement surgery caused her additional harm. On reply, Chris and Alan prevailed on both arguments, demonstrating that subsequent treatment records and radiological films confirmed the components were properly aligned and installed, and that the plaintiff’s expert ignored material evidence in rendering an opinion to the contrary. They further relied on findings from multiple non-party medical providers within the workers’ compensation records to establish that the clients’ treatment did not cause any additional harm to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court held that summary judgment was warranted on two distinct grounds and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. 
Read more
Events
The Butterfly Effect: Tips for Weathering a Litigation Storm
Jim Kiser (Of Counsel-Dallas, TX) will lead a CLE panel presentation titled “The Butterfly Effect: Tips for Weathering a Litigation Storm” at the Aviation Insurance Association’s Annual Conference, held May 4-7, 2026, in Dallas, Texas. Jim, joined by fellow aviation attorneys and an aviation claims adjuster, will discuss how seemingly insignificant decisions at the beginning of aviation litigation can dramatically impact the case’s course. The panel members will provide suggestions to minimize or eliminate the negative impacts of turbulence and help ensure a smoother, more direct litigation journey with positive results.
Read more
Events
Legal Issues During The Customer's Journey
Gregory Lee (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been invited to speak on the panel “Legal Issues During the Customer’s Journey” at the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) National Convention, to be held May 4-7, 2026, at the La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, California. Alongside fellow ski area defense attorneys, Greg will address the legal issues customers may encounter in their interactions with ski resorts, from pre-arrival experiences to on-mountain visits and post-incident matters.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Announces 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Recipient
New York, NY — National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the recipient of the 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship, named for the firm’s Chair Emeritus, a founding member of the firm.  This year’s recipient is Amaya Lester, daughter of Weinstock St Fleur, IT Regional Supervisor for the firm’s New York office. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or upon graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university. “We are pleased to continue the firm’s scholarship in honor of Thomas W. Wilson Sr. for the 2026–2027 year,” said Danial McMahon, the firm’s chairman. “Amaya truly embodies the values that the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship was established to honor. We are delighted to recognize her exceptional achievements and commitment to making a positive impact in her community. It is my pleasure to congratulate Weinstock, Amaya, and their family.” Amaya is a senior at Mercer County Technical Schools Health Sciences Academy in Trenton, New Jersey. She is a member of the National Honor Society and the National Technical Honor Society and has dedicated four years to her school's swim team while remaining actively involved in various school clubs. Deeply committed to community service, Amaya volunteers through her school's Red Cross Chapter and serves as a Student Ambassador at Mercer County Technical Schools. She is also a member of Glamour Girls, a group that visits nursing homes to build meaningful connections with elderly individuals, and she regularly volunteers at her church. Demonstrating both initiative and leadership, Amaya founded the Green Paws: Veterinary and Environmental Club at her school, inspiring her peers to make a meaningful impact on animal welfare and environmental stewardship. This initiative reflects her passion for these causes – interests she will continue to pursue as she begins her studies in Veterinary Science at Rowan University this fall. About the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program In 2010, the firm's partnership established the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program to support the college education of selected award recipients who are children of current, full-time Wilson Elser employees. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university.
Read more
Client Wins
Motta and Bokeno Prevail at Arbitration in High-Stakes Construction Defect Case
Denise Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) and Andrew-John Bokeno (Associate-Louisville, KY) obtained summary judgment and dismissal of Wilson Elser’s client, a roofing and sheet metal company, in an arbitration arising from a construction defect claim. The property owner alleged that our client negligently installed and repaired the roof of three apartment buildings, resulting in leaks and a partial collapse of the parapet wall. The owner further alleged damages exceeding $1.7 million. Denise and AJ argued that the owner's claims were barred by the 5-year statute of limitations and the economic loss doctrine. The arbitrator agreed and dismissed the owner's claims.
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
Events
Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language
Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY), Stephanie Reda (Partner-White Plains, NY), and Martin Ween (Senior Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language on May 5, 2026. This presentation will focus on the importance of carefully drafting insurance policies, endorsements, and applications to avoid legal disputes regarding meaning and interpretation. The session will highlight key themes of coverage disputes over policy interpretation and ambiguous words and phrases. The presenters will share caselaw examples and address how counsel can assist in limiting the risks of coverage disputes.
Read more
Publications
DOJ Reschedules Medical Marijuana: Implications for Insurance Coverage, Capacity, and Compliance
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult-use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, all of which add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. The FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products.  The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now, FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well-capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal/state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing of rescheduling and rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up.  The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines.  This article was published in the April 28, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
News
Motta Elected Vice Chair of ADR Section of Kentucky Bar Association
Denise M. Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) was elected as Vice Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the Kentucky Bar Association with a term beginning June 31, 2026, and continuing through 2028. Denise is currently the Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for DRI, is a Panel Member for the American Arbitration Association (Construction and Commercial), and regularly serves as a mediator and arbitrator.
Read more
Client Wins
Peticca and Friedberg Win Summary Judgment Dismissal of Med Mal Case with Workers’ Compensation Defense
Christopher Peticca (Associate-White Plains, NY) and Alan Friedberg (Senior Counsel-White Plains, NY) obtained summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, securing dismissal of a medical malpractice action against Wilson Elser’s clients, an orthopedic surgeon and his practice. The plaintiff, who sustained a workplace injury years earlier, underwent more than six years of treatment under workers’ compensation coverage before undergoing a total knee replacement performed by our clients. She alleged that the surgery was negligently performed, claiming the components were oversized and improperly aligned. In moving for summary judgment, Chris and Alan argued that the surgery was performed in accordance with the standard of care and that recovery was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff had already been compensated for the same injuries. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an expert affirmation challenging the size and alignment of the knee replacement components, as well as case law in support of her position that her workers’ compensation claims did not bar the malpractice action because the subject knee replacement surgery caused her additional harm. On reply, Chris and Alan prevailed on both arguments, demonstrating that subsequent treatment records and radiological films confirmed the components were properly aligned and installed, and that the plaintiff’s expert ignored material evidence in rendering an opinion to the contrary. They further relied on findings from multiple non-party medical providers within the workers’ compensation records to establish that the clients’ treatment did not cause any additional harm to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court held that summary judgment was warranted on two distinct grounds and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. 
Read more
Events
The Butterfly Effect: Tips for Weathering a Litigation Storm
Jim Kiser (Of Counsel-Dallas, TX) will lead a CLE panel presentation titled “The Butterfly Effect: Tips for Weathering a Litigation Storm” at the Aviation Insurance Association’s Annual Conference, held May 4-7, 2026, in Dallas, Texas. Jim, joined by fellow aviation attorneys and an aviation claims adjuster, will discuss how seemingly insignificant decisions at the beginning of aviation litigation can dramatically impact the case’s course. The panel members will provide suggestions to minimize or eliminate the negative impacts of turbulence and help ensure a smoother, more direct litigation journey with positive results.
Read more
Events
Legal Issues During The Customer's Journey
Gregory Lee (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been invited to speak on the panel “Legal Issues During the Customer’s Journey” at the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) National Convention, to be held May 4-7, 2026, at the La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, California. Alongside fellow ski area defense attorneys, Greg will address the legal issues customers may encounter in their interactions with ski resorts, from pre-arrival experiences to on-mountain visits and post-incident matters.
Read more
Privacy Settings
Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.
These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site