A federal court has ruled Berkshire Hathaway must defend Trulieve Inc. in a wrongful death lawsuit over a cannabis worker's fatal asthma attack.
The Northern District of Florida issued the decision on March 31, 2026, resolving a coverage dispute that turned on two questions insurance professionals know well: who counts as a named insured, and when does an underlying complaint trigger a duty to defend?
The case arose from the death of Lorna McMurrey, a worker at a cannabis production facility in Holyoke, Massachusetts. McMurrey worked in a pre-roll production room, where grinding machines broke cannabis flower into smaller pieces for pre-roll production. The process created significant amounts of airborne cannabis dust, and workers were often covered head to toe in "kief," a sticky powder produced during the refining process. The facility's ventilation system was supposed to filter the debris but didn't always do so. McMurrey suffered an asthma attack after inhaling moldy cannabis dust, was hospitalized, returned to the same role, and within two months suffered a second, fatal attack. Federal safety investigators attributed her death to occupational asthma from ground cannabis exposure.
McMurrey's estate sued the Trulieve entities and others in Massachusetts state court, alleging negligence for failing to maintain grinding machines, enforce workplace safety procedures, and properly design the facility's ventilation system. Three Trulieve entities - Trulieve Inc., Trulieve Cannabis Corporation, and Trulieve Holyoke Holdings LLC – then turned to Berkshire Hathaway, which had issued a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability policy to Trulieve Inc., seeking a declaration that the insurer owed them a defense.
Berkshire Hathaway pushed back on two fronts. First, it argued that Trulieve Cannabis and Trulieve Holyoke were not named insureds under the policy. Second, it contended that the McMurrey lawsuit did not allege any Trulieve entity acted as McMurrey's employer - a condition it said was necessary for coverage to apply.
The court applied Florida's "eight corners" rule, which determines an insurer's duty to defend by comparing the underlying complaint against the policy language. If any allegation in the complaint falls within coverage, the insurer must defend.
On the named-insured question, the policy's schedule listed "Trulieve" - without "Inc." and without a Federal Employer Identification Number – as one of 19 named insureds. Trulieve Cannabis and Trulieve Holyoke argued this was an umbrella term meant to cover multiple related entities. Judge Winsor disagreed. The same schedule separately listed other affiliates by their full corporate names, such as "Trulieve CT, Inc." and "Trulieve PA, LLC." Reading "Trulieve" as an umbrella term would render those entries meaningless – something Florida's rules of policy interpretation do not permit. The court found the two additional entities were not insureds as a matter of law.
The policy itself contained two coverage parts worth noting. Part One, the Workers Compensation Insurance section, covered benefits owed under state workers compensation law. The court found it inapplicable because Massachusetts requires workers compensation claims to go through an administrative system, not civil courts. Part Two, the Employers Liability Insurance section, was broader – it covered lawsuits and related legal actions for damages connected to an employee's bodily injury, and it expressly excluded obligations imposed by workers compensation statutes. The court found that McMurrey's civil lawsuit was the kind of action Part Two was designed to reach.
That left the employer question. Berkshire Hathaway pointed out that the McMurrey complaint itself identified Life Essence – a Trulieve Cannabis subsidiary that operated the Holyoke facility – as the only employer listed on McMurrey's W-2. The insurer argued the Trulieve entities were being sued as facility owners, not as employers.
The court was not persuaded. The complaint alleged the Trulieve entities created and controlled the facility's operational protocols and safety plans, provided worker guidelines, supplied and maintained the grinding machines, and had the authority to require McMurrey's reassignment to a different position. Judge Winsor found these allegations described paradigmatic employer functions under the common law test – control over work, provision of tools, and authority over workplace policies. Even if Berkshire Hathaway's interpretation was arguable, Florida law resolves doubt in favor of the insured.
The result was a split decision. Berkshire Hathaway's motion to deny coverage to Trulieve Cannabis and Trulieve Holyoke was granted. Its motion against Trulieve Inc. was denied. The court declared that Berkshire Hathaway owed Trulieve Inc. a duty to defend in the McMurrey lawsuit, which remains pending in Massachusetts Superior Court. The earlier claim against co-defendant Trisura Specialty Insurance Company had already been dismissed at the pleading stage.
The case offers a few practical reminders for insurance professionals. Precision in policy drafting matters – the ambiguity around "Trulieve" versus "Trulieve, Inc." drove significant litigation, even though the court ultimately found the umbrella reading unreasonable. For multi-entity policyholders in emerging industries like cannabis, the gap between who pays premiums and who actually appears on the named-insured schedule can become a coverage flashpoint. And the duty-to-defend analysis, as always, turns on what the complaint alleges, not what actually happened — a distinction that continues to catch insurers off guard.
