Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Crop Insurance

Court of Federal Claims Lacks Jurisdiction Over
Crop Insurance Dispute

Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law

In Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 04-5080, 2005 WL 1279256 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over a crop insurance dispute because federal district courts possess exclusive jurisdiction against actions brought by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). Plaintiff Ace Property & Casualty Company, along with several other insurance companies, brought an action against the United States for breach of contract. See id. at *1. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the plaintiffs' action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. The plaintiffs' appealed that decision, arguing that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction because the FCIC was not named as a party in their complaint against the government.  See id. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, stating that "[a]n inspection of the contract and the insurers' pleadings reveal the true nature of this action: a suit by insurers against the FCIC, the contracting party, for breach of the . . . contracts, a suit which falls under the purview of section 1506(d)." Id. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Court of Federal Claims had concurrent jurisdiction over the action, stating that "Congress has withdrawn Tucker Act jurisdiction against the FCIC and vested exclusive jurisdiction in the federal district courts." Id. (citing Texas Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

The case was decided on June 1, 2005; this summary was posted July 29, 2005.