July 30, 2026
Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) introduced a bill on July 21 that would bar federal regulators from punishing insurance companies for covering state-legal cannabis businesses. The Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana Act — the CLAIM Act — was referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and it arrives as the industry's insurance problem gets more expensive every renewal cycle.
The bill is an insurance-specific analogue to SAFE Banking. It would protect insurers, brokers, agents, and their employees from federal penalties solely for providing insurance services to cannabis businesses operating legally under state law. It would also protect the income insurers earn from those policies and prohibit federal agencies from discouraging or penalizing carriers for writing the coverage.
This is not new text. The CLAIM Act has now been introduced in four consecutive Congresses, and the current bill remains largely the same as prior versions. What has changed is the market around it: more states, more licensed businesses, and a rescheduling process that has raised — without answering — the question of when federal financial services normalize.
Cannabis businesses can get insurance, but mostly through a narrow surplus-lines market at prices and terms that would be uncompetitive in any other retail or agricultural sector. Admitted carriers largely stay out because servicing a federally illegal business creates theoretical federal exposure — the same logic that keeps most banks out. The result: thin coverage options for crop loss, product liability, and directors-and-officers lines, high premiums, and exclusions that can swallow the policy. For operators, underinsurance is not an abstraction; it shows up in lease negotiations, investor diligence, and licensing applications that require proof of coverage.
The CLAIM Act contains no banking provisions — it does not move SAFE Banking's broader protections, and it does not touch 280E, custody, or payments. It is insurance only. It also does nothing for hemp businesses facing the November 12 federal hemp standard; its subject is state-legal marijuana businesses.
Moving marijuana to Schedule III would change tax treatment and research access, but rescheduling does not fix financial services. A Schedule III business trafficking in marijuana outside FDA approval channels is still federally illegal, and insurers' exposure concerns stem from that baseline illegality — which is why insurance-specific statutory protection matters independently of where the rescheduling process lands.
The bill's introduction changes nothing about coverage today, but operators can position for the market it would create:
The bill sits in Senate Banking with no scheduled action. Prior versions attracted bipartisan cosponsors but never moved as standalone bills; the realistic path, as with SAFE Banking, is attachment to a larger vehicle. No deadlines apply. This is a bill to monitor, not to plan around. Talk to your counsel and your broker before changing coverage strategy.
Can cannabis businesses get insurance today? Yes, but mostly through a narrow surplus-lines market at high prices, because carriers fear federal exposure for servicing a federally illegal business.
What would the Cramer–Gallego bill do? Bar federal regulators from penalizing insurance companies, agents, and brokers solely for providing coverage to state-legal cannabis businesses — an insurance-specific analogue to SAFE Banking.
Does rescheduling fix cannabis insurance? Not by itself. Schedule III changes tax and research treatment; insurers' federal-exposure concerns stem from broader statutes the CLAIM Act targets directly.
Is this law yet? No — it was introduced July 21, 2026 and referred to the Senate Banking Committee. It is the fourth consecutive Congress in which the measure has been introduced. Operators should plan against current coverage conditions and talk to their counsel and brokers.
Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) introduced a bill on July 21 that would bar federal regulators from punishing insurance companies for covering state-legal cannabis businesses. The Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana Act — the CLAIM Act — was referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and it arrives as the industry's insurance problem gets more expensive every renewal cycle.
The bill is an insurance-specific analogue to SAFE Banking. It would protect insurers, brokers, agents, and their employees from federal penalties solely for providing insurance services to cannabis businesses operating legally under state law. It would also protect the income insurers earn from those policies and prohibit federal agencies from discouraging or penalizing carriers for writing the coverage.
This is not new text. The CLAIM Act has now been introduced in four consecutive Congresses, and the current bill remains largely the same as prior versions. What has changed is the market around it: more states, more licensed businesses, and a rescheduling process that has raised — without answering — the question of when federal financial services normalize.
Cannabis businesses can get insurance, but mostly through a narrow surplus-lines market at prices and terms that would be uncompetitive in any other retail or agricultural sector. Admitted carriers largely stay out because servicing a federally illegal business creates theoretical federal exposure — the same logic that keeps most banks out. The result: thin coverage options for crop loss, product liability, and directors-and-officers lines, high premiums, and exclusions that can swallow the policy. For operators, underinsurance is not an abstraction; it shows up in lease negotiations, investor diligence, and licensing applications that require proof of coverage.
The CLAIM Act contains no banking provisions — it does not move SAFE Banking's broader protections, and it does not touch 280E, custody, or payments. It is insurance only. It also does nothing for hemp businesses facing the November 12 federal hemp standard; its subject is state-legal marijuana businesses.
Moving marijuana to Schedule III would change tax treatment and research access, but rescheduling does not fix financial services. A Schedule III business trafficking in marijuana outside FDA approval channels is still federally illegal, and insurers' exposure concerns stem from that baseline illegality — which is why insurance-specific statutory protection matters independently of where the rescheduling process lands.
The bill's introduction changes nothing about coverage today, but operators can position for the market it would create:
The bill sits in Senate Banking with no scheduled action. Prior versions attracted bipartisan cosponsors but never moved as standalone bills; the realistic path, as with SAFE Banking, is attachment to a larger vehicle. No deadlines apply. This is a bill to monitor, not to plan around. Talk to your counsel and your broker before changing coverage strategy.
Can cannabis businesses get insurance today? Yes, but mostly through a narrow surplus-lines market at high prices, because carriers fear federal exposure for servicing a federally illegal business.
What would the Cramer–Gallego bill do? Bar federal regulators from penalizing insurance companies, agents, and brokers solely for providing coverage to state-legal cannabis businesses — an insurance-specific analogue to SAFE Banking.
Does rescheduling fix cannabis insurance? Not by itself. Schedule III changes tax and research treatment; insurers' federal-exposure concerns stem from broader statutes the CLAIM Act targets directly.
Is this law yet? No — it was introduced July 21, 2026 and referred to the Senate Banking Committee. It is the fourth consecutive Congress in which the measure has been introduced. Operators should plan against current coverage conditions and talk to their counsel and brokers.
