Come October, growing marijuana will be legal — but not risk-free
- Thread starter herbs1
- Start date
MedicatedHiker
Well-Known Member
Bah. Much ado about nothing again.
We all know about the evidence presented during the Allard trial (i.e. home growing is safer than cooking in the kitchen)...
And besides, there's already been a precedent set in court in favour of a home owner, and that was an illegal grow:
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/court-rules-wawanesa-must-pay-fire-claim-on-home-used-as-grow-op-1003764360/
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Did you read the article? They had to pay because they couldn't prove that the owner knew about the illegal activities going on in his house. That doesn't mean they can't refuse to pay others who have a fire with a grow even if the fire is unrelated to the grow.
"In June, 2010, Wawanesa stated to Davidson that if Wawanesa had been “made aware” that the property was being used for illegal activity, it “would have declined” to issue a home insurance policy.
Wawanesa argued that Davidson’s failure to disclose illegal activities on his property “constituted material misrepresentation.”
The central issue, on the issue of misrepresentation, Justice Fitzpatrick wrote, was whether Davidson knew about the illegal activities.
Wawanesa “has not introduced any direct evidence that Mr. Davidson knew of the illegal activities in the Residence, but relies on various circumstantial evidence,” including a video, recovered by an insurance adjuster from Davidson’s camcorder, she wrote.
“This is a case close to the line, but I accept the evidence of Mr. Davidson and find, as a fact, that he did not know of the grow operation or even the other activities relating to potentially stolen property or potentially illegal firearms over the relevant period of time leading up to the fire,” she wrote. “Simply put, Wawanesa, while presenting a compelling case and raising a number of suspicions, did not meet that burden of proof.”
In order to prove material misrepresentation, Wawanesa would have to have proven: there was a change that was material to the risk; the change was within Davidson’s control; Davidson had knowledge of the change; and neither Wawanesa nor its local agent were promptly notified in writing of the change."
I wonder how the insurance companies deal with fires where people are growing veg and herb exactly the same way we grow pot. Why should they get a free ride?
unless they state growing cant be done
nuffff said about this BULL SHIT!
any person who rents out their place is fucked
..SO DONT RENT IT!
they are done in court!!
INS is bullshit and will get SHOWN THE WAY
anyone who grows tomatoes is covered avocados...peas...reg plants..
it comes down to the LIGHTS and if the lights are approved to be used indoors ????
ITS ALL LEGIT !!! INS will LOSE IN COURT like the FEDS DID!
And there is nothing and INS company could do about it in court except agree to lose and pay out ONCE after being told by the courts!
They are in business to INSURE so do your job fuckers
dont like it?
FIND ANOTHER BUSINESS TO SCREW PEOPLE WITH THEN!! MOFOS!
nuffff said about this BULL SHIT!
any person who rents out their place is fucked
..SO DONT RENT IT!
they are done in court!!
INS is bullshit and will get SHOWN THE WAY
anyone who grows tomatoes is covered avocados...peas...reg plants..
it comes down to the LIGHTS and if the lights are approved to be used indoors ????
ITS ALL LEGIT !!! INS will LOSE IN COURT like the FEDS DID!
And there is nothing and INS company could do about it in court except agree to lose and pay out ONCE after being told by the courts!
They are in business to INSURE so do your job fuckers
dont like it? FIND ANOTHER BUSINESS TO SCREW PEOPLE WITH THEN!! MOFOS!
MedicatedHiker
Well-Known Member
Read between the lines, buddy. It will be legal.Did you read the article? They had to pay because they couldn't prove that the owner knew about the illegal activities going on in his house. That doesn't mean they can't refuse to pay others who have a fire with a grow even if the fire is unrelated to the grow.
"In June, 2010, Wawanesa stated to Davidson that if Wawanesa had been “made aware” that the property was being used for illegal activity, it “would have declined” to issue a home insurance policy.
Wawanesa argued that Davidson’s failure to disclose illegal activities on his property “constituted material misrepresentation.”
The central issue, on the issue of misrepresentation, Justice Fitzpatrick wrote, was whether Davidson knew about the illegal activities.
Wawanesa “has not introduced any direct evidence that Mr. Davidson knew of the illegal activities in the Residence, but relies on various circumstantial evidence,” including a video, recovered by an insurance adjuster from Davidson’s camcorder, she wrote.
“This is a case close to the line, but I accept the evidence of Mr. Davidson and find, as a fact, that he did not know of the grow operation or even the other activities relating to potentially stolen property or potentially illegal firearms over the relevant period of time leading up to the fire,” she wrote. “Simply put, Wawanesa, while presenting a compelling case and raising a number of suspicions, did not meet that burden of proof.”
In order to prove material misrepresentation, Wawanesa would have to have proven: there was a change that was material to the risk; the change was within Davidson’s control; Davidson had knowledge of the change; and neither Wawanesa nor its local agent were promptly notified in writing of the change."
I wonder how the insurance companies deal with fires where people are growing veg and herb exactly the same way we grow pot. Why should they get a free ride?