Under section I Property Coverages, Coverage C...new paragraphs 12 and 13 added as follows:...
 
13. $500 for loss of marijuana in any form. No additional coverage applies.
 
 

LMFAO!

You must live in one of the 24 states that have mmj or recreational marijuana laws.
 
Rocky

On a serious note, is there some inside joke here I am missing (doh!), or is this for real? And what is paragraph 12? You mention it but did not show it.

This is not a joke. It came unsolicited with my Pemco Insurance (Washington State) homeowner's policy renewal declarations. The original goes on for several uninteresting pages and the ellipses indicate where cuts were made for brevity. Paragraph 12 adds coverage for trading cards, comic books stamps and magazines and is not all that noteworthy.
 
I expect that $500 might cover actual losses to someone possessing the legal limit of MJ in Washington, but I wonder what evidence the insurer would require that it was in the house at the time of the loss. A recent receipt from the recreational pot store? The testimony of a half dozen friends who couldn't remember anything else?
 
I assume the "No additional coverage..." clause is intended to relieve the insurer of compensating for the emotional distress of the loss.

I am amazed at this. One thought would be that you have a really good insurance policy to cover something like this. I only could think that MJ is considered medicinal to be included. But would other medicines also be included for loss too? I am really at a loss how this could have gotten into coverage in an insurance policy. Amazing.

What about coverage for the 80 year old bottle of Scotch, considered to be a family heirloom?
 
No, you've got me, weed coverage is better.

KenB123
I am amazed at this. One thought would be that you have a really good insurance policy to cover something like this. I only could think that MJ is considered medicinal to be included. But would other medicines also be included for loss too? I am really at a loss how this could have gotten into coverage in an insurance policy. Amazing.

Washington has had legal medical marijuana since 1998, but this coverage did not appear until this year. I suspect that the specific coverage is included primarily to set a contractual limit to the payout for recreational pot. If the contract is mute about coverage, an insured who had a lot of money invested in his MJ might take the insurer to court claiming that it was covered under the general "personal property" clause in the contract. By separately insuring it for $500 the insurer limits his liability. 
 
Incidentally, the Washington State law makes it illegal to share pot with anyone, so if you buy a joint legally and let your wife have a toke you are a criminal. A group of individuals or a family sharing a house might each have a stash under the limit, so there could be a lot of the stuff in the house.

slartabartfast
Under section I Property Coverages, Coverage C...new paragraphs 12 and 13 added as follows:...
 
13. $500 for loss of marijuana in any form. No additional coverage applies.
 

My thoughts on this are ... unclear! But this is strange. What if someone is a care giver and has a license to grow a few plants? You gonna deny insurance and charge more?
 
I know a few people here in the State of Washington where this applies! I'm not sure that the insurance can "punish" folks on that situation, because they could actually be making it harder and more expensive in the long run for other medical treatments.
 
I must be out of my mind already! Some of these things are insane and (probably) need to be explained better, and not come off like it is another extortion by an Insurance Company!  Are they saying that you can only get $500 dollars to pay for your "loss" and what not?
 
I kinda doubt that!
 

Well, a bit of curiosity and Google, have turned up this review article on the subject.
http://www.insuranceissues.org/PDFs/371W.pdf
 
The case of medical marijuana raises some interesting questions. I expect that homeowners who lost medical marijuana could claim coverage of medication, as they could for any expensive prescription drugs in the house. The claim under damage to shrubs and trees cited in the article is truly (and ultimately unsuccessfully) imaginative.
 
The wrinkle with a designated grower under the medical marijuana law is that it is not clear who owns the pot from the point of view of the insurer. The designated grower only possesses the pot for the purpose of delivering it to the patient, and if the grower claims a personal ownership to it, he would likely run afoul of possession laws. The patient is not typically a guest in the grower's home, so her personal property would likely be excluded from coverage, or the grower might be found not to have an "insurable interest" in the stuff. The same issues might arise if you were storing stuff for an unrelated friend as a favor and a loss occurred.