This article was originally published in the Policyholder Advisor, Volume 25, Issue 1 (January/February 2016)

Farmers and other agribusinesses holding crop insurance policies have long been relatively sheltered from coverage disputes by federal subsidies that cover as much as 70% of farmers' premiums. At present, these valuable subsidies mean that crop insurers stand to gain by keeping policyholders happy, as opposed to strategically denying large claims and risking loss of customers. Based in large part on this dynamic, crop insurance companies generally pay claims more readily than insurance companies selling other types of coverage.

Nonetheless, crop insurance policyholders should not be complacent. Congress could alter the subsidies at any time — and a change in federal subsidies could lead to a significant rise in denied claims.

At present there is significant pressure on Congress, including from the Obama administration, to pare back crop insurance subsidies. If subsidies are reduced, however, crop insurers would face pressure to lower premiums from farmers suddenly faced with a tighter insurance budget. If premiums drop even slightly, the insurance companies may be incentivized to deny more claims to hold their bottom line. As a result, the crop insurance market would grow significantly more competitive.

Thus, while the relationship between farmers and crop insurance companies is largely copacetic at present, it is in the best interests of farmers and other agricultural companies to understand what could happen if reduced subsidies sour that relationship. Many crop insurance companies are large, nationwide entities whose claims handlers are accustomed to strategically denying claims made under other types of coverage. For example, among the 17 federally approved crop insurers (and reinsurers) for 2016 are ACE American Insurance Company and Farmers Mutual, both among the 20 biggest commercial insurance companies in the United States.

Moreover, independent of the subsidies issue, litigation over crop insurance claims is far from unheard-of. In one recent decision, a federal district judge in Iowa rejected a soybean farming venture's allegation that his crop insurer had adjusted a 5,000-acre hail damage claim in violation of his crop policy. Bruhn Farms J.V. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60320 (N.D. Iowa May 8, 2015). Contrary to the farmer's contention, the court held that the insurance company followed the appropriate procedure in adjusting the value of this factually complex loss. The court entered summary judgment, and the farming venture's appeal is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Crop policies have also yielded high stakes litigation in the context of disputes over named insured status,1 loss adjustment methodology,2 enforceability of arbitration clauses,3 and insurable interest determinations.4

Despite the atypical nature of the crop insurance market, farmers and other agribusinesses must recognize the present threat of litigation and be prepared for it. Understanding the nuances of crop insurance coverage will only become more important if the subsidies currently provided by the federal government give way to shifting legislative tides.

ENDNOTES

1 Buchholz v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d 988 (W.D. Wis. 2005).

2 Meyer v. Conlon, 162 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 1998).

3 Hobbs v. IGF Ins. Co., 834 So. 2d 1069 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2002).

4 Scruggs Farm Nursery v. Farmers Crop Ins. Alliance, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53410 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2012).

Nicholas R. Maxwell is an attorney in Anderson Kill's New York office. Mr. Maxwell's practice concentrates in corporate and commercial litigation, insurance recovery, exclusively on behalf of policyholders, and in environmental and employment law.
(212) 278-1161 | nmaxwell@andersonkill.com

About Anderson Kill

Anderson Kill practices law in the areas of Insurance Recovery, Commercial Litigation, Environmental Law, Estate, Trusts and Tax Services, Corporate and Securities, Antitrust, Banking and Lending, Bankruptcy and Restructuring, Real Estate and Construction, Foreign Investment Recovery, Public Law, Government Affairs, Employment and Labor Law, Captive Insurance, Intellectual Property, Corporate Tax, Hospitality, and Health Reform. Recognized nationwide by Chambers USA for Client Service and Commercial Awareness, and best-known for its work in insurance recovery, the firm represents policyholders only in insurance coverage disputes - with no ties to insurance companies and has no conflicts of interest. Clients include Fortune 1000 companies, small and medium-sized businesses, governmental entities, and nonprofits as well as personal estates. Based in New York City, the firm also has offices in Ventura, CA, Philadelphia, PA, Stamford, CT, Washington, DC and Newark, NJ.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.