Grand Rapids, MI | coup - 7/4/2011 08:22
Talked to a fellow yesterday from Christian County, IL.
Said there were two fields of corn about ready to tassel, with one in between still not planted that was slated to go to corn, farmed by somebody that has bit off more than they can chew.
If I was a crop insurance adjuster, would have a hard time allowing a prevent plant payment on this field.
coup...you don't really give enough info to explain why a claim should be denied. Here are the rules from the PP Loss Adjustment Handbook:
(1) Unless limited by other policy provisions, an insured may be eligible for a PP payment IF:
(a) The insured is prevented from planting the insured crop on insurable acreage with proper equipment by the FPD...
(b) The cause of loss is general in the surrounding area and prevents other producers from planting acreage with similar characteristics. Failure to plant because of uninsured causes such as lack of proper equipment or labor to plant acreage or use of a particular production method is not considered prevented planting;
It is entirely possible that a field between two others tasseling could have legitimately PP. On my family's farm there was 2 days that were suitable to plant between mid-april (the earliest safe planting date) and June 1. We did really well on those two days (planting 20-25% of our planned corn) but there were plenty of fields that were still unplanted. We were able to get planting with about 3-5 days prior to final plant date, so we got everything in, but with one more rain we would have been beyond the June 5 final plant date for corn. After June 5 it would have been our decision whether or not to plant, per the terms of the policy we purchased.
Also the rules say "similar conditions" perhaps not so much in central IL, but certainly here in MI and many other places around the country, three fields next to each other may not be in "similar" condition. Perhaps the one not planted was much lower ground. If there is other similar lower ground in the surrounding area that was not planted the producer would have met condition (b)
Now if the producer did bite off more than they could chew and they can be found to not be properly equipped (a tough one to prove since there are no objective standards listed) or there are no other PP fields in the area with similar characteristics then the claim could and should be denied. |
Prevent Plant bailout
