Home insurer can deny coverage if you grow even a single cannabis plant, as per recent B.C. court ruling

A British Columbia superior court judge has ruled that a small, legal medical cannabis grow located in an outbuilding on a Chilliwack, B.C. family property is grounds for their home insurer to deny coverage after a major fire, despite the fact that the plants were not the cause of the fire.

 

 

Statements made by the family’s insurer, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, suggest that even the presence of a lone cannabis plant on one’s property could be adequate grounds to deny compensation or even void the policy completely.

Statements made by the family’s insurer, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, suggest that even the presence of a lone cannabis plant on one’s property could be adequate grounds to deny compensation or even void the policy completely.

Federal law dictates that Canadians are permitted to grow one to four cannabis plants for personal consumption, although home growing is banned outright in some provinces like Quebec and Manitoba. Medical patients can obtain licences to grow their own cannabis under the ACMPR.

Plaintiffs Bob and Linda Schellenberg have three sons who suffer from painful medical conditions, which led to them seeking and successfully obtaining licences to grow cannabis plants indoors at their parents’ home.

Schellenberg built an up-to-code outbuilding to house the cannabis, and it eventually contained just over 300 plants, with their legal limit being up to 502. He received a permit for the building and informed their insurance company of the new construction, although he did not mention its purpose.

The building was badly damaged by a fire in 2014. The cause of the fire was not related to the cannabis plants and originated on a separate storey of the building, but once Wawanesa was made aware of their presence, the company refused to cover the damages on the grounds that growing cannabis in the building qualified as an unreported “material change.” Insurers may void policies or refuse coverage if they discover alterations to insured property that may have resulted in a denial of insurance or a significantly higher premium rate.

Justice Margot Fleming concluded in her decision that she was “entirely satisfied its [the cannabis plants’] presence in the outbuilding was a change that was material to the risk,” and moved to dismiss the case.

Home growers are advised to check with their insurance providers to ensure that their plants do not void their coverage in case of damage.