# Crop Insurance Question



## JMT (Aug 10, 2013)

We own some crop ground that we rent on shares (50/50). We also run our own cow/calf operation. We have full access to crop residues and share rented ground to feed on when crop is out.

We (as landlords and 50% share) do not have crop insurance. Operator has crop insurance.

Soybean crop this year looks to be a total loss because it has been to wet. We did get some in the ground but it looks like most of the seed is rotting. Much of our bean ground will not get seeded at all.

Talked operator today and the crop insurance that they purchased limits haying or grazing untill Nov. 1st.

We were hoping to sow something (ourselves) for hay or grazing on some of the ground and planned on using it before November. Seems like we should be able utilize the ground since we did not purchase crop insurance.

How do the regulations on crop insurance work out when one share purchased it and the other share did not? Also can you help explain how some of the basics of crop insurance? Like preventive planting?

Thanks.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

I would think all are bound by the insured and the number of acres he has insured, you would jeopardize his payment if you grazed the insured ground....I think he would only get payment of 35% if grazed before Nov.1 instead of 100%.

Regards, Mike


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

My understanding is that normally the ground cannot be used for anything once a claim is filed. Otherwise, the less-than-scrupulous would file a claim then get a full crop off it.

Some people hereabouts who work on shares get their own crop insurance for their half. The renter only covers his half for crop insurance. Did your renter get the full insurance or only on his half? If only on his half, then you might be able to do something with the ground. If he only got insurance on his half, you might be out of luck. Check with the USDA office.

Ralph


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Sounds like a good clause to put in your next lease agreement.

Many differeNt possible scenarios here.


----------



## JMT (Aug 10, 2013)

I think he only covered his half. But according to his "insurance man" the acres/production/shares cannot be treated separately.

I definitely can understand the position the renterl/operator is in and I don't want to jeopardize the payment he is due, but I feel like we are being bound by a contract we never agreed to and had no dealing, knowledge, or prior notice of. In addition, at this point, some of the unplanted acres have not been touched. Meaning the renters share of the risk in the crop has not been realized (fuel, labor) while our share of risk (ownership costs) has.

I don't see the point of the insurance limiting our grazing/haying. The renters, yes, I can see why (because of his claim) he could not. Our use of the ground would return nothing to the renter so it should not effect his claim.

Definitely something to include in a lease agreement.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

JMT said:


> I think he only covered his half. But according to his "insurance man" the acres/production/shares cannot be treated separately.
> .........
> Definitely something to include in a lease agreement.


Hmmmm. If he paid the full crop insurance, and gets the full payout, I believe you are owed half. From the sounds of it, this is a "prevented planting" claim.

Then there's the issues related to the election of ARC-PLO, ARC-County, etc. And this could make a difference one way or 'tother.

I think the place to start would be the USDA office to find out exactly what the operator was doing, then take it from there.

Ralph

"#5 needs input". Short Circuit


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

I'd say u are SOL until Nov 1.Unless you want to throw your renter out of compliance.

I'd seed something that can be hayed or grazed Nov 1.You could end up with more feed then you would of just from the crop residues you would of had.


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

If you plant anything and harvest or graze it before November 1st, he will get only 35% payment on his share. He should have only been able to insure his half of the production. Unfortunately this binds the acres. It seems unfair, but it is to stop people from getting a payment and getting full use of the ground. Unfortunately it stinks for you in this situation, but it is a rule that is there because so many farmers were taking advantage of prevent plant. I adjusted for 13 years (full time farmer now) and it was amazing how new rules had to keep being written to stop the abuse that some farmers felt they needed to commit.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

OhioHay said:


> .....and it was amazing how new rules had to keep being written to stop the abuse that some farmers felt they needed to commit.


We have one guy here who farms about 3000 acres over 8-10 farms and collects almost every year. It's amazing to me how adjacent farms of his can have 250 bu corn on one farm and 135 bu corn on the field (different farm) immediately adjacent* and nobody says anything!*

Ralph


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

rjmoses said:


> We have one guy here who farms about 3000 acres over 8-10 farms and collects almost every year. It's amazing to me how adjacent farms of his can have 250 bu corn on one farm and 135 bu corn on the field (different farm) immediately adjacent* and nobody says anything!*
> 
> Ralph


That happens a lot. The problem is proving it. Not even allowed to make an accusation of fraud without iron clad proof or it opens the insurance company up to a law suit.


----------

