• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Arrigo Risk Consulting

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Services
    • Mediation
    • Consulting
    • Expert Testimony
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Contact Us

Mobile Menu

Recent Comments

    Crop Insurance News and Analysis – March 6, 2020 – Emergency Loss Procedures for 2019 Crops Flooded Above the Edible Portion

    March 17, 2020 By //  by Kim Arrigo

    On March 6, 2020, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) issued Managers Bulletin: MGR-20-004, regarding emergency loss procedures for unharvested crops that were flooded above the edible portion. https://www.rma.usda.gov/en/Policy-and-Procedure/Bulletins-and-Memos/2020/MGR-20-004. RMA states that excessive precipitation in 2019 caused flooding in many counties in Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota. RMA states that a significant number of unharvested cropland acres were flooded above the edible portion resulting in production that is “adulterated” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and may be injurious to human or animal health. In response, RMA has issued emergency procedures that will streamline certain loss determinations and the destruction of adulterated production.

    Approved insurance providers (AIPs) can use the emergency procedures on a case by case basis and must flag the claims using the procedures, document in the claim folder that the emergency procedures were applied, follow the procedures found in subparagraphs 1108 and 1102H(3) of the Loss Adjustment Manual, and during the on-farm inspection finalize the claim based on the producer’s signed certification that the production will be destroyed. RMA provides the certification statement the producer must sign.

    ANALYSIS – It appears that loss adjusters are required by subparagraph 1108 to visit the farm to verify that the production has been flooded above the edible portion. Once that determination has been made the claim can be paid based on the adulterated production and the producer certifies the production will be destroyed, any production receiving a zero value that has been sold will result in the adjustment of the claim, and the producer must maintain photographic evidence of the date and location of the destruction for verification purposes. As a practical matter this makes sense and, as long as loss adjusters verify that the flood in fact rose above the edible portion, the procedures provide for a zero value.

    RMA states that application of the “emergency procedures is limited to those situations where the catastrophic nature of the losses due to flooding or excess precipitation is such that not authorizing these emergency procedures could result in claim settlement delays.” It is not quite clear what this is intended to mean. As drafted, it appears that the application of these procedures is to any acreage that flooded above the edible portion but now its application appears to be limited to situations where not applying the procedures would delay claims being paid. These different statements may create an ambiguity since the latter statement never mentions the adulterated nature of the crop. Consistency in the usage of terms and statements eliminates the potential for ambiguity.

    For example, RMA also states the insured must sign a certification but the statement actually reads as an acknowledgment. The crop insurance program has been based on certifications for most of the last 30 years. The term “acknowledgment” has rarely if ever been used in the crop insurance program in connection statements such as these. The definition of each term is slightly different. It is unclear whether the use of both “certification” and “acknowledge” in this Bulletin means RMA intended them to have different meanings or RMA intends them to be used interchangeably. If its is the latter, then RMA should use one or the other term to avoid the appearance of an ambiguity.

    All statements made are opinions of the author and are not intended to provide legal opinions or legal advice.

    Filed Under: Blog

    Previous Post: « Crop Insurance News and Analysis – March 16, 2020 – FAD-292
    Next Post: Crop Insurance News and Analysis – March 12, 2020 – Premium Rate Adjustments for Repairs Breached Levees »

    Primary Sidebar

    Recent Posts

    • Crop Insurance News and Analysis – October 23, 2020 – Final Agency Determination FAD-300, Section 6(d)(1) of the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions
    • Crop Insurance News and Analysis – October 15, 2020 – Updated Nursery Crop Insurance Recordkeeping Frequently Asked Questions
    • Crop Insurance News and Analysis – October 13, 2020 – Commodity Exchange Price Provisions – Peanuts
    • Crop Insurance News and Analysis – September 30- October 6, 2020 – 2021 Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index
    • Crop Insurance News and Analysis – September 25, 2020 – Enhanced Coverage Option

    Archives

    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019

    Footer

    CONTACT INFORMATION

    Arrigo Risk Consulting PLLC
    136 W. Dares Beach Rd. #115
    Prince Frederick, MD 20678

    CONTACT US

    PRACTICE AREAS

    • Mediation
    • Consulting
    • Expert Testimony
    • About Us
    • Our Services
      • Mediation
      • Consulting
      • Expert Testimony
    • Blog
    • Resources
    • Contact Us

    Copyright © 2025