"I guess my thought on them paying my crop insurance premium is because I'm now forced to pay premium on a field that will not produce much of a crop and i may be paying the penalty for 10 years of aph when this is not my fault, plus crop insurance isn't going to pay to my revenue guarantee for this damage which I understand. "

Let me say this...... your crop insurance premium is a cost of growing your corn crop.  If you did not have this damage, you would still be paying the premium, and that cost would come out of the corn crop you sold (or used).   Same way here.  The difference is that the insurance company will - at least from what I understand - will pay you in dollars for the difference between what you would grow without the damage, and what the damaged corn will yield.  So, in the end, your net dollars should be the same - regardless of actual bushels that goes thru your combine.

Now, the penalty on future income because your crop insurance yield is reduced..... that is a whole different ballgame.  If you know what your history is - and I presume you do - you could try to calculate - estimate - what that loss would be.  To me, that would be a legitimate argument to make.  However, you will need to show the figures of how often you have filed for claims in the past, and how lowering your yield history could affect that.  If you can show those kinds of numbers/calculations, I think you have a legitimate argument.  However, you can't just pull a number out of a hat and say: "I am going to have loss on future income due to a reduction in yield history." You will need to be able to prove (or show) it.

"There is 100 lbs nitrogen out there, I can't see putting another 100 lbs out there now just because thats what I did on the rest of the corn, there is no way its going to while enough to justify that expense."

Let me say this:  let's say that 80% of your field is going to recover 100%, or at least 90%; and that 20% of your field is going to recover 25% or less.  You can't really say that I am going to reduce the total number of lbs of N I am applying to this field, because the whole field is going to yield less. If you do, you will be reducing the top-yielding areas in the field, and dragging down the whole field yield response.  You have to be able to apply enough nitrogen so that the best yielding parts are not limited.  To put it another way, you have to make sure each and every plant has ample nitrogen/ fertilizer so that each plant will reach optimal yield.  And this might mean in this scenerio, variable rate nitrogen applications will achieve that.  I don't know if it is practical for you, but theoretically-speaking, variable rate might be the ticket here.

Something to chew on.......