Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Crop Insurance

Insurer Fails to Provide Date of Denial to Insured

Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law

In Rain & Hail Insurance Services, Inc. v. Vickery, No. A05A0335, 2005 WL 1653761 (Ga. Ct. App. July 14, 2005), the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's denial of an insurer's motion for summary judgment that argued that an insured's action was barred by the twelve-month time period set forth in the insured's crop insurance policy. Defendant Rain & Hail Insurance Services, Inc. denied a prevented planting claim filed by plaintiff Jeff Vickery on behalf of Vickery Farms, Inc. See id. at *1. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the terms of the crop insurance policy because the plaintiff filed the action over eighteen months after the plaintiff had received oral and written notice that the claim had been denied. See id. at *3. The policy required actions arising out of the policy to be brought within twelve months of the denial of the claim. See id. The plaintiff argued that notice was not provided to him and therefore the claim was not barred. See id. Specifically, he disputed that he had received oral notice and asserted that the letter he received from the insurer was ambiguous because it was addressed to the plaintiff individually rather than the corporate entity from which the prevented planting claim was made, failed to mention the corporate entity in the text of the letter despite mentioning other farms owned by the plaintiff, and did not specifically state that the claim was denied. See id. The court agreed with the plaintiff and held that the defendant failed to establish the "date of denial" as a matter of law. See id. Despite its finding as a matter of law, the court further held that a jury issue existed as to whether the plaintiff had received oral or written notice of denial of his claim for prevented planting. See id.

The case was decided on July 14, 2005; this summary was posted July 29, 2005.