by Grant Ballard

The basic provisions of the common crop insurance policy  require arbitration of disagreements between producers and approved crop insurance providers in many circumstances.   Arbitration is often the only course of action for a producer who feels that his crop insurance claim has been improperly denied.  While crop insurance is well known and widely used by agricultural producers in this country, many producers are not familiar with the arbitration requirement or the arbitration process.    This article is not intended as legal advice, but it will hopefully bring some clarity to the arbitration requirement and foster a better understanding of arbitration in general.

What is Arbitration?

Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution, where a dispute is submitted to an impartial decision-maker or a panel of decision-makers who make a binding decision on an insured’s claim.  Arbitration is commonly referred to as an alternative dispute resolution method because arbitration is an alternative to the use of the court system for the resolution of a dispute.  The impartial decision-maker is called an arbitrator, and the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding on the parties who submitted the dispute to arbitration. The binding nature of an arbitration decision, referred to as an arbitration award, distinguishes arbitration from mediation, another form of alternative dispute resolution that is offered in the basic provisions of the standard crop insurance policy.  Mediation is a voluntary method of dispute resolution, wherein an impartial mediator does not issue a binding decision.  Instead, mediation is an attempt to encourage a settlement or agreement between the parties of a dispute.  Arbitration, on the other hand, results in a final decision as to the disagreement.

When is Arbitration Required in the Context of a Crop Insurance Dispute?

As earlier noted, Section 20 of the common crop insurance policy basic provisions requires the arbitration of disputes between an insured and the crop insurance provider as to as to “any determination” made by the insurance provider.  This policy provision also prevents insured producers, who feel that their crop insurance claims were improperly denied, from bringing suit against their crop insurance provider in a court of law.  The  arbitration requirement for crop insurance disputes has been challenged by insured producers across the country, who have sought to use the formal court system to force crop insurance providers to pay their crop insurance claims.  So far, Courts have consistently found the arbitration requirement to be mandatory and have refused to hear crop insurance disputes that were not submitted to arbitration, as required in the common crop insurance policy.

The enforceability of arbitration clauses, such as the one found in the basic provisions is governed by the  Federal Arbitration Act, and the aforementioned Court rulings stand for the proposition that arbitration is mandatory in all crop insurance disputes between an insured producer and the private insurance provider.  Parties to a crop insurance contract are generally bound by the arbitration requirement.

Can you Appeal an Arbitration Award in a Crop Insurance Dispute?

The findings of an arbitrator may be subject to judicial review in certain circumstances.  Court rulings also indicate that state law claims may survive an arbitration,  and offer the insured an opportunity to litigate a crop insurance claim in state court.  If missteps are made at arbitration, an insured producer has a right to judicial review of the arbitration award.  The basic provisions make the availability of judicial review of arbitration awards clear.  However, a Federal Court is not allowed to vacate an arbitration award merely because it disagrees with the findings of an arbitrator.   A Federal Court review of an arbitrator’s decision is limited by the Federal Arbitration Act.  This Act states the exclusive grounds upon which a court may vacate an arbitration award as follows:

1). Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;

2  Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;

3). Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

4). Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

The above-referenced grounds upon which a court may vacate an arbitration award are applicable to crop insurance disputes.  The fourth ground, allowing vacatur where arbitrators have “exceeded their powers” may be especially relevant in a crop insurance case, as an arbitrator’s power to resolve a crop insurance dispute is severely limited by the basic provisions of the common crop insurance policy.

Some instances where an arbitrator or arbitration panel does not have the authority to enter an award in a crop insurance dispute, include disagreements where the insured contests “determinations made by the FCIC,” claims where the “FCIC is directly involved in the claims process”, and where the FCIC “directs” the insurance provider’s “resolution of the claim.”    “Good farming practices” disputes are also not arbitrable disputes.  The procedure for the resolution of these aforementioned disputes involve administrative proceedings, outside of arbitration, and pursuant to the common crop insurance policy basic provisions and federal regulations.

How Does Arbitration Work?

The Basic Provisions of the common crop insurance policy also dictate the manner in which an arbitration proceeding is conducted.  Arbitration proceedings must be initiated by the insured within one year of either the date on which a disputed determination was issued or within one year of the denial of the insured’s crop insurance claim.  The policy states that arbitration must be conducted “in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.”  The American Arbitration Association Rules can be found online at http://www.adr.org.   

The timing for initiation of arbitration is key if an insured wishes to contest a determination by the insurance provider.  The one year time limitation is not tolled by separate negotiations or legal proceedings involving the insurance provider.  Arbitration is “initiated” by filing a “Demand for Arbitration” with the insurance provider. The common crop insurance policy’s requirement that arbitration be conducted in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) has generated some confusion as to the proper initiation of a crop insurance arbitration, as the AAA rules require that an arbitration demand be filed with the AAA and AAA arbitrators be used to arbitrate the dispute.  However, the USDA Risk Management Agency has made effort to clarify that crop insurance disputes, arbitrated pursuant to the common crop insurance policy, do not require a filing with the AAA  and do not mandate that a AAA Arbitrator conduct the arbitration.

While a crop insurance claimant may initiate a claim by filing with the AAA, the claimant may also elect not to have the AAA arbitrate the dispute.  In the event that the claimant chooses not to engage the AAA, the guidelines provided in the recently issued RMA Bulletin No.:MGR-12-003.1 should be followed.  Important points are that arbitration is initiated by filing a copy of a demand with the insurance provider and that demand

shall clearly state a demand for arbitration and shall contain a statement of the nature of the dispute, including a short statement of facts, and identification of the policy provision upon which the policy holder relies, the names and addresses of all parties, any claims and counterclaims, the amount involved, if any, the remedy sought, and the hearing locale requested.    Again, the AAA arbitration rules will govern all arbitration proceedings, regardless of whether the arbitration is conducted through the arbitration services provided by the AAA.

Conclusion

As disputes are certain to occasionally arise between insured producers and their crop insurance providers, it is necessary for producers to be aware of the policy provisions that limit the available tools for the resolution of any such disagreement.  An understanding of arbitration and the applicability of arbitration in the context of a crop insurance dispute is imperative if a producer who feels a crop insurance claim was improperly denied is to successfully argue against a decision made by the crop insurance company.  Hopefully, this article has provided some insight into the arbitration requirement, found within the common crop insurance policy, and the arbitration process in general.

What does this mean to the producer who is audited?  Basically, the insurance provider wants to establish that your production is accurate.  The insurance provider will also want to verify whether crop insurance documents relating to application, production reporting,  etc. are in compliance with Federal Crop Insurance Corporation procedures.  An insurance company representative will undertake this review and will likely visit your farm.  Documentation will be needed, specifically actual production history (APH) documentation.  Producers faced with an audit will need to supply these records for the three years prior to the claim.

As a result, farmers who are filing large crop insurance claims might be advised to begin gathering documentation of production for the past three years.  Documentation of production can be verified by settlement sheets, scale tickets, load records, combine monitor records, and bin measurements.  However, your crop insurance agent should be contacted so that you can make certain that your records are satisfactory.  For example,  combine records must specifically identify the field as well as the date of harvest and unit numbers.

Be proactive in preparing for a possible crop insurance audit because indemnities are not paid until the audit is completed.

The Banks Law Firm PLLC represents agricultural producers in crop insurance disputes.  For more information call Grant Ballard at 501-280-0100 or contact him by email at gballard@bankslawfirm.us.

by Grant Ballard

Attorneys who practice in the area of agriculture and agricultural law regularly get questions about cropland and farm leases.  In today’s world, producers realize that lease terms and misunderstandings as to the provisions in lease agreements can be costly and result in the complete breakdown of the landlord-producer relationship.  Most farmers in our area of the country are coming to the wise conclusion that written leases are a good idea, but all too many leases are not properly drafted and are unfair to one of the parties to the lease.  However, farm leases can be constructed so that they are fair to both the producer and the landlord.  Quality leases ensure the stability of the landlord-tenant relationship and the  long-term  farm profitability of the farm operation, by clearly describing  the  responsibilities and expectations of each party to the farm lease agreement.

I am writing this short article to highlight areas of a cropland lease to which producers should give serious attention.  When you consider signing a farm lease, please, at a minimum, pay attention to the following issues.

• Dates and Signatures-  A lease should provide the beginning and ending dates for the term of the lease.  Of Course, it should be signed and dated by both parties.
• Property Description-  A lease should contain a legal description of the real property and reference all buildings and improvements to be leased by the farm operator.
• Termination Clause-  Both parties should understand and agree to the circumstances which may end the lease.  Producers should be aware of all circumstances that may allow   a landlord to terminate the lease.  Farmers should also insist the lease expressly state that they be given written notice of default along with a specified time period in which to respond to the landlord’s notice of grounds for termination.  Producers should also consider providing themselves an opportunity to cure the default, within the written terms of the lease.
• Terms of Rental-  A lease should describe with specificity the rental agreement, including whethere the lease is a cash lease or a crop-share agreement.  The time at which payment is due should be specified, as well.
• Maintenance of Property-  A lease should expressly state the responsibilities of both the landlord and the tenant, in regard to the maintenance and repair of the leased property as well as any improvements on the premises.  Often a cropland lease will involve the maintenance of soil fertility and the control of noxious weeds.  It is wise to address these issues.  A good farm lease will also address the possibility of reimbursement or the discounting of rent, where the producer is forced to spend a large or unanticipated amount of money in the maintenance or repair of the landlord’s property or improvements.
• Liability Issues-  A cropland lease should not unfarily apportion liability on the producer.  In addition, the lease should require that insurance is carried on the property, and the lease should assign the responsibility to obtain and maintain coverage to one of the parties to the agreement.
• Federal Farm Programs-  A farm lease that involves cropland should also address federal farm programs, especially whether the landlord or the farmer has the authority to make determinations as to farm program and conservation program participation.
• Arbitration  Provisions-  Producers should understand that, by signing a lease agreement which includes an arbitration clause, they are limiting their right to use the Court system to protect their interests.  Arbitration proceedings are, for all practical purposes, final.  Producers should also be aware that arbitrators are not judges and may have no legal experience or an adequate understanding of the legal issues presented by a farm lease dispute.  Producers should give significant thought to the consequences of an arbitration clause before signing a lease that mandates the arbitration of disputes between the landlord and farmer.

When dealing with a lease that involves a significant amount of cropland or that will be in effect for a period of years, it is always a good idea to have an attorney draft and review the lease prior to signing.   For assistance in the drafting or review of your cropland lease, feel free to contact Grant Ballard at (501) 280-0100 or by email at gballard@bankslawfirm.us.

Well,  farm operators in the counties declared as disaster areas are eligible for low-interest emergency loans.  USDA has also announced some farm program changes that should improve the delivery of assistance to producers in disaster areas.  These changes should include the reduced interest rate on emergency loans as well as reductions in processing time.

The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture has also launched a site with drought resources  for Arkansas farmers.  It may be worthwhile to check it out if you are currently struggling with a drought related issue.  The site can be found at http://arkansasdroughtresourcecenter.wordpress.com/.

The Drought of 2012 and Crop Insurance Concerns

The 2012 drought and crop insurance claims arising from this drought have begun to receive some national attention.  Reuter’s reports that covered losses may exceed the 2011 record of $10.7 billion.  Crop insurance providers have also begun to issue press statements ensuring farmers that there is adequate money to satisfy their claims.

Producers shoud be aware that the failure of irrigation systems, due to a loss in water supply, may be an insurable cause of loss.  In addition, farm operators must be certain to comply with  policy provisions concerning timely notice.  If you feel you have a drought related loss to your crop, contact your crop inurance provider and protect your interests by:

• Notifying your crop insurance agent, in writing, of crop damage.  Remember, your crop insurance policy requires notice within 72 hours of the initial discovery of damage.
• Not destroying damaged crops without written authorization from your insurance provider (AIP).

For more information on legal issues arising from the 2012 drought and crop insurance claims, contact Grant Ballard at (501) 280-0100 or by email at gballard@bankslawfirm.us.

The webinar will provide a quick overview of the Clean Water Act and a description of the role that the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers play in the regulation of agricultural activities.  Moreover, we will give significant attention to the Gulf Restoration et al. v. Jackson lawsuit that was filed on March 13, 2012.  Gulf Restoration et al. v. Jackson is an attempt by various environmental organizations to force the EPA to implement stricter water quality regulations across the 31 states that make up the Mississippi River Basin.  Such action would likely have a serious impact on agricultural activities and fertilizer application in the mid-south.

To participate in the webinar, simply go to https://connect.extension.iastate.edu/aglaw and sign in as a guest.  Before viewing the webinar, please visit the following URL to confirm your ability to connect to the server:  http://www.extension.iastate.edu/testconnect/.

If you have any questions about this webinar, please call Grant Ballard at the Banks Law Firm, at (501) 280-0100.

Shifting Farm Policy and the Move to Crop Insurance

Our federal government’s deficit reduction efforts will take a significant bite out of current farm programs.   Policy changes included in the next farm bill will likely force producers to rethink their approach to managing risk.  It now appears that direct payments will be completely eliminated.  Congress will attempt to offset these spending cuts through the introduction of “shallow loss” crop insurance programs.  In order for crop insurance to be an effective risk management tool, farmers must educate themselves as to how these crop insurance policies work and the obligations that farmers carry under each insurance agreement.

All crop insurance policies are reinsured by the federal government.  The United States Department of Agriculture, through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) and the Risk Management Agency (RMA), sets the basic policy terms, conditions, and rates.  Producers should be aware that the federal government has the actual authority to make final determinations as to certain provisions in their  crop insurance agreement.  This can make for a complex arrangement where the RMA and individual insurance providers regularly disagree as to whether a farmer is owed an indemnity.

The complexity of crop insurance policies has led to significant confusion and many farmers have experienced difficulty navigating the claims process.  The tips and suggestions listed below may help producers avoid some of the mistakes that can complicate the recovery of losses insured under a crop insurance policy.

• Act quickly upon the discovery of damaged crops.  A farmer only has 72 hours after the discovery of losses to put the insurance provider on notice of a claim.
• Regardless of time constraints, do not destroy a damaged crop before a claims adjuster has finished the adjustment process.
• When a claim arises under prevented planting coverage, have a crop consultant or agronomic specialist visit the field and make notes as to the conditions that prevented a timely planting of the crop.
• Always keep good records relating to an insured crop and give extra care to reporting acreage planted correctly.  A simple underreporting of acreage planted can result in a lower indemnity payment.
• The initial denial of an insurance claim does not necessarily mean that a farmer has done anything wrong. In many cases, farmers have taken action to appeal and contest the initial denial of an indemnity payment and later recovered the value of their disputed policy.

Remember, extra effort and attention to detail at the time of the initial claim to the insurance provider may very well prevent severe headaches further down the road.  Innocent mistakes and simple oversights in the process of pursuing a crop insurance claim have all too often proven costly for farmers.

Environmental Regulation under the Clean Water Act

Producers should also take notice that the recent debates over the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed regulation of farm dust and routine pesticide applications give clear indication that federal environmental authorities are taking steps to become more directly involved in the regulation of routine farming practices.  The Clean Water Act (CWA) continues to evolve and may be increasingly relevant to farmers in the near future.  Section 404 of the Act, requires those discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, to obtain a permit before taking such action.  While many normal farming practices are exempt from this provision, problems arise with the government’s interpretation of “wetlands” and “normal farming practices.”

What farmers need to know is that the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will get to make the final decision as to what is a wetland and what farming practices should be called a “normal farming practice.”   Before clearing or making physical changes to any land that is not currently in farm production and is seasonally saturated with water, farmers should give some thought to contacting the following regional offices.

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The Corps has the responsibility of running the Section 404 permitting process.  The regional office can provide assistance in making a determination as to whether a planned alteration will require a permit.
• The National Resource Conservation Service.  Contact the NRCS to make sure that the planned activity will not affect eligibility for certain farm programs.

Taking these steps before making minor changes to farm property can be an inconvenience.  However, the possibility of severe fines combined with the time and cost involved in appealing a penalty assessed by the Corps of Engineers should provide a substantial incentive for caution before making any physical modification to land that is not currently in farm production and is seasonally wet.

Changes in Farmland Ownership and Lease Agreements

In recent years, many producers have had to adapt to dealing with absentee landowners who have little knowledge of day-to-day agricultural operations.  All too often, misunderstandings of lease agreements between landowners and farmers have led to the breakdown of a lease agreements and litigation. A comprehensive, written farm lease agreement is an important step in eliminating these time consuming conflicts.  When drafting a farm lease agreement, the devil is in the details so consider the following issues if they are applicable to the farm operation.

• Oral leases may be valid, but they are never recommended.
• Clearly outline the expectations and responsibilities of both the farmer and the landowner.
• Make clear any obligations regarding maintenance of the property, including responsibility for the cost of fertilizer.
• Address the allocation of farm program payments.
• Include provisions for the untimely death of either the landlord or the farmer.  Whether the lease will continue in the hands of either successor should not be left to debate while the ownership of the property or the farm is in transition.
• Discuss a termination clause.  Both parties should understand and agree to the circumstances which may end the lease.
• Vague lease terms should be avoided at all cost as they are capable of multiple interpretations.  Terms and conditions cannot be too specific.  Remember, what means one thing to the farmer may mean another to a landlord who has not been involved in production agriculture.

Another development arising at least in part from transitions in farm ownership is the increasing demand for cash rent by landowners.  Cash rental agreements are becoming more common, but the varying nature of farm income often makes it difficult to arrive at a fair rental rate.  Farmers who would like to see landowners share risk might consider a flexible rent agreement as these agreements can help a producer maintain profitability when crop prices or yields decline.  Under a typical flex-rent agreement, rent is not set until after harvest and can be based on either a share of gross revenue or a base rent with an added “bonus’ percentage of farm revenue.  The most obvious benefit of the flexible rent agreement is that rent is adjusted based upon the yield and price that the farmer actually receives.

Conclusion

This article highlights only a few issues that are of increasing importance to those involved in farming on an everyday basis.  The winds of change are certainly blowing, and farmers should prepare now for the coming changes to federal farm policy and crop insurance protection.  Farmers must also be proactive in taking action to avoid costly disputes with environmental regulators and landowners.  Put simply, there has never been a time in which farmers have needed to be more aware of these developing  issues and risks which have the potential to severely impact the profitability of individual farm operations.

* First published in the Delta Farm Press on February 15, 2012.

]]> http://bankslawfirm.us/changing-times-issues-in-agricultural-law-that-may-impact-mid-south-farmers/feed/ 0 http://bankslawfirm.us/prevented-planting-crop-insurance-what-producers-need-to-know/ http://bankslawfirm.us/prevented-planting-crop-insurance-what-producers-need-to-know/#comments Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:50:53 +0000 banks http://bankslawfirm.us/?p=390 read more]]> by Grant Ballard

Attorney, Banks Law Firm

As many producers in the mid-south have struggled with dry planting conditions this spring, this post will hopefully alleviate some confusion over the rules regarding prevented planting crop insurance coverage.  This short article also highlights some of the legal issues that may be involved in a prevented planting crop insurance claim denial.  Prevented Planting coverage is available when a farmer is prevented from planting due to an insured cause of loss.   Drought, flood, and excessive rainfall can easily modify or halt a farm operation’s goals for planting, and prevented planting coverage offers producers insurance for those times when weather conditions do, in fact, prevent the planting of a crop.   In summary, a prevented planting payment may be made when a producer is unable to plant an insured crop prior to the final planting date or within the late planting period.  When acreage is planted during or after the late planting period, insurance coverage will be determined under the late planting provisions of the crop insurance policy.

In order to qualify for coverage, planting must be prevented by an insured cause of loss experienced in the area and that also prevented other farmers, within that area, from planting their farmland with similar characteristics.  Two terms should stand out to the insured producer: “area” and “similar characteristics.”   The United States Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency (RMA) has determined that “the term area is subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, and the determination of “area” may vary from case to case.”  Generally, “area” is defined by the cause of loss,  meaning that all acreage impacted by a drought or flood may be included in the area.  The “similar characteristics” analysis is also highly important because if farmers in the area, working acreage with similar characteristics to the insured farm, were not prevented from planting, then a payment will not be made.  RMA has found that acreage is considered to have similar characteristics when there is “comparable geography, topography, soil types, and the same weather conditions and exposure.”

Prevented Planting Coverage Where Neighboring Farms are Planted

To obtain a prevented planting payment for an insured crop, the farm must be in an area where other farmers, farming acreage with “similar characteristics,” were also prevented from planting.  In times of drought, however, prevented planting coverage may still be available for famers who choose not to plant when their neighbors choose otherwise.  This may seem contrary to the basic definition of prevented planting coverage, but the United States Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency (RMA) has recognized that drought presents a scenario where planting may not be a good farming practice.

In drought situations, it is certainly possible that insured acreage can be planted at a time when there is not adequate soil moisture for seed germination.  Producers in an area may make the decision to plant into soil with insufficient moisture for germination, in anticipation of sufficient rainfall.  The decisions of these producers to plant will not necessarily bar neighboring producers, who chose against planting, from receiving a prevented planting payment.  Producers who chose not to plant will receive prevented planting payments so long as RMA determines that planting into ground with insufficient moisture is a “poor farming practice.”

In the event of a drought, a producer may wonder whether planting is the proper course of action.  What a producer should remember is that all planting decisions should be based on sound agronomic principles.  Moreover, decisions and farming practices should be documented to the fullest extent practicable.  The decision to plant, as well as the decision not to plant, could be sound in a given situation and prevented planting acreage can sometimes be found in the same area as planted acreage.

Drought and Prevented Planting: Lack of Moisture and Failure of Irrigation Equipment

To qualify for prevented planting coverage, during times of drought, on non-irrigated land, a producer should document insufficient soil moisture for seed germination or insufficient soil moisture for “progress toward crop maturity due to a prolonged period of dry weather.”  The common crop insurance policy requires that the producer provide documentation for use in establishing insufficient soil moisture and that documentation must be verifiable through the weather records of “sources whose business it is to record and study the weather.”  Weather reports from local weather news outlets or the National Weather Service should typically satisfy this “verifiable” requirement.

Prevented planting provisions also cover irrigated acreage against drought as well as “failure of the irrigation water supply” and “failure or breakdown of irrigation equipment or facilities,” resulting from drought.   Collection of a prevented planting payment on irrigated acreage requires documentation that “there is not a reasonable expectation of having adequate water to carry out an irrigated practice or you are unable to prepare the land for irrigation using your established irrigation method.”   Producers should recognize that the failure or breakdown of irrigation equipment can provide a basis for prevented planting payments, but the failure or breakdown must be the result of an insured cause of loss,  such as drought.

Prevented Planting in Times of Excessive Moisture

            Prevented planting crop insurance can also be valuable to producers in times of excessive rainfall and flood.   Again, covered losses will depend in large part on a producer’s individual circumstances, due to the potential variation in elevation and soil type within a single geographic area.  If prevented from planting due to excessive moisture, producers should remember to timely report the prevented planting situation to their insurance agent.  Under the current policy, this notice must usually be given within 72 hours of the final planting date for the crop.   Moreover, insurance providers can be expected to ask for “expert” documentation of farm conditions.   In summary, producers should be certain to refer to their crop insurance policies in the event of a possible prevented planting situation as final planting dates will vary by crop and region.

Conclusion

            Prevented planting crop insurance coverage can be confusing at first glance.  What it is important to remember is that planting decisions should be made in accordance with sound agronomic principles.  Furthermore, producers should take care to document their farming practices as such documentation may become necessary to collect under the prevented planting provisions.

Grant Ballard is an agricultural lawyer and associate with the Banks Law Firm, PLLC, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  Mr. Ballard focuses a portion of his practice on the litigation and arbitration of crop insurance disputes.  If your crop insurance claim has been denied or you anticipate a denial, he can be contacted via email at gballard@bankslawfirm.us or by phone at (501) 280-0100.

It is easy to access and participate in the webinar.  Simply click here:  https://connecti.extension.iastate.edu/aglaw and sign in as a guest.  Before viewing the webinar, please visit the following URL to confirm you abilit to connect to the server:  http://www.exension.iastate.edu/testconnect/.

The educational series will consist of a series of webinars, in-person producer workshops, and several publications covering topics such as food animal agriculture, the farm bill reauthorization, federal crop insurance, agricultural bankruptcy, and environmental regulation.

“We are proud to help support the National Agricultural Law Center and hope that our support encourages other donors to continue supporting the great work of the Center as well,” said Chuck Banks.

Created in 1987, the National Agricultural Law Center mission is to serve as the nation’s leading source of agricultural and food law research and information. The Center accomplishes this mission through a variety of research, information, and education activities conducted on a national scale. It is the only agricultural law research and information facility that is independent, national in scope, and directly connected to the national agricultural information network.

The Banks Law Firm concentrates a portion of its practice on representing agricultural producers. Because he comes from a long farm background, Chuck Banks has represented the interests of farmers in a variety of agricultural matters, including his representation of more than 300 rice farmers and farming entities in litigation against Bayer CropScience LP when genetically modified rice infiltrated the U.S. rice supply and depressed farm level prices.

As part of the gift, Grant Ballard, associate attorney at the Banks Law Firm, will serve as a Research Consultant to the National Agricultural Law Center and assist in the Center’s national research and information activities.

The National Agricultural Law Center has recently published two articles written by Mr. Ballard relevant to farmers’ interaction with the federal crop insurance program, The Federal Crop Insurance Program:  Administration, Structure and Operation and Filing a Crop Insurance Claim: An Overview for Producers. These articles and others can be found on the Center website at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org.

In the event that a crop is injured, documentation of the damage is necessary.  Agricultural producers should be proactive in assessing and recording damage to growing crops.   Pictures, records of farming practices, and statements of agricultural experts should be gathered to ensure the success of any legal action that must be taken to recover monetary damages resulting from plant injury outside of a farmer’s control.

When a producer first notices damage to growing crops, pictures or video should be taken of the entire damaged area.  Close-up pictures of individual plants may also be beneficial in showing detailed injury to the crop.  At this point, it is important that a producer has someone with experience in assessing crop injury take a look at the plants.  Agents with the Cooperative Extension Service or private crop consultants can be called to diagnose and document the injury.  These experts should be asked to give their written opinion as to the cause of the injury.  If chemical damage is suspected, plant samples should be taken and analyzed by a laboratory as soon as possible.

Any producer facing significant crop injury should consider calling an experienced attorney.  An attorney should visit the field and view the damaged crop.  If a producer is under the impression that a particular product, such as a fertilizer, pesticide, or seed, caused the injury, notify the manufacturer of the product immediately as there are certain laws which may be applicable requiring prompt notice of potential damage.

Records of farming practices are also beneficial in the event that a crop is damaged and a lawsuit must be filed.  Purchase records of seed can be used to establish expected crop yield.  Documentation of seed variety as well as the purchase and application of chemicals and fertilizer will provide evidence that a producer has followed proper farming practices and demonstrate that crop damage or injury was not the result of improper action on the part of the producer.

It is further recommended that a producer keep copies of product labels and receipts demonstrating the purchase of chemicals, along with all written information provided to the producer that discusses the use or application of a chemical.  There have been documented cases where chemicals did not live up to their guarantees and, in reality, led to significant crop damage.  As a result, good record keeping can protect a farmer in the event that properly applied chemicals result in unexpected injury to growing crops.

If you would have questions regarding possible crop damages or an action to recover for your financial losses resulting from such damage, feel free to contact the Banks Law Firm at (501) 280-0100.