CLAIM Act Filed to Shield Cannabis Insurance Providers From Federal Penalties

Federal Safe Harbor for Insurance Providers Serving State-Legal Cannabis Operators

The CLAIM Act would prohibit federal agencies from penalizing insurers, brokers, or agents solely because they provide coverage to state-licensed cannabis businesses. Filed Wednesday by Representatives Velázquez and Davidson, the bipartisan bill creates a statutory shield against federal enforcement actions targeting insurance providers in the cannabis sector. The legislation doesn't legalize cannabis at the federal level. It carves out a narrow safe harbor for the insurance industry.

The bill addresses a longstanding compliance dilemma. Federal law currently classifies cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, creating potential liability for any entity facilitating cannabis commerce—including insurers. The CLAIM Act would remove that liability for insurance transactions tied to state-compliant operators.

Regulatory Exposure Drives Market Fragmentation in Cannabis Insurance

The absence of federal protection has fragmented the cannabis insurance market, leaving operators with limited coverage options and elevated premiums. Many national carriers decline to underwrite cannabis risks, citing federal legal uncertainty. The resulting gap has pushed cannabis operators toward specialty insurers and surplus-lines carriers, often at rates 20 to 40 percent above comparable non-cannabis commercial policies. That's a steep markup for the same basic coverage.

The CLAIM Act would allow federally regulated insurers to enter the cannabis market without triggering enforcement by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or other federal banking and insurance regulators. Regulatory clarity could expand underwriting capacity and compress pricing spreads in the cannabis insurance segment.

Bill Text Mirrors Safe-Harbor Language in SAFE Banking Act

The CLAIM Act uses safe-harbor language functionally identical to provisions in the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, which has passed the House seven times since 2019 but hasn't cleared the Senate. Both bills prohibit federal regulators from penalizing financial-services entities—banks in the case of SAFE, insurers in the case of CLAIM—for serving state-legal cannabis businesses. The CLAIM Act doesn't reference SAFE directly but operates on the same legal architecture.

The bill creates a parallel safe harbor for the insurance industry, applying the same enforcement shield that SAFE Banking would grant to depository institutions.

For full background on this story, see the CannIntel topic hub on cannabis insurance federal protections.

Co-Sponsors Signal Cross-Party Support in Small-Business and Financial-Services Committees

Velázquez chairs the House Committee on Small Business; Davidson serves on the House Financial Services Committee. The co-sponsorship pairing mirrors the coalition structure that's advanced SAFE Banking in prior sessions. Velázquez has historically framed cannabis banking and insurance access as small-business equity issues, while Davidson has emphasized federalism and state-rights arguments. Neither representative has released a joint statement on the bill's prospects for markup or floor consideration.

The bill was introduced in the 119th Congress. Committee referral and hearing schedules haven't been published as of September 17, 2026.

What Comes Next for the CLAIM Act

The bill faces referral to the House Financial Services Committee and likely the House Judiciary Committee, given its intersection with controlled-substances law. Passage would require clearing both chambers and securing a presidential signature—the same procedural hurdle that's stalled SAFE Banking in the Senate. No companion bill has been filed in the Senate as of this writing.

The next signal: whether Senate Banking Committee leadership schedules a hearing on cannabis financial services before the end of the 119th Congress. Without Senate movement, the CLAIM Act will follow the same trajectory as SAFE Banking. House passage, Senate inaction, reintroduction in the next session.