Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Crop Insurance

Plaintiffs' Lack Standing to Sue Government in
Crop Insurance Dispute

Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law

In Buchholz v. Rural Community Insurance Company, No. 05C0115C, 2005 WL 1711153 (W.D. Wis. July 20, 2005), the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an action against the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and Mike Johanns in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter federal defendants). Plaintiffs Clifford A. Buchholz and Audrey Passe brought an action against a private insurance company (insurer) and the federal defendants after their claim for indemnification was denied. See id. at *1. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to meet the requirements for standing under Article III of the United States Constitution as espoused in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). See id. The court also held that the plaintiffs' action against the federal defendants was not ripe. See id. It explained that as a general rule "a claim for indemnification of a tortfeasor is not ripe until the tortfeasor has been held liable." Id. at *2. The court added that "[u]ntil and unless plaintiffs' claim against . . . [the insurer] has been determined in plaintiffs' favor and plaintiffs can show an imminent danger that . . . [the insurer] will be unable to pay the claim so that the federal defendants will be called upon to indemnify . . . [the insurer] and the federal defendants have refused the indemnification request, the controversy between the federal defendants and plaintiffs is not ripe." Id. The court further held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the federal defendants because they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See id.

The case was decided on July 20, 2005; this summary was posted July 29, 2005.