The statute of limitation should apply to all, unless the law singles out farmers as being exempt from this statute. We always have very legitimate reasons for not doing things on time.
Stupid logic by the court.
Clearly they should make an exception for farms for this type of loss – not a strict statutory reading but a “knew or should have known” reasonable time period. If not in Dec 2002, then perhaps by mid-July 2002 when the failed plantings would have been noticeable in the field.
I’d take it a step further. The farm obviously took reasonable measures in filing the claim in a timely fashion.
I think the starting point of the statute of limitations should be from the initial denial of coverage. I’d be curious to know how long it took the insurer to respond to the claim, and if they left enough time for the insured to appropriately pursue recourse through filing of this suit.
Crop insurance may be different from the personal lines I am familiar with but this does not seem fair. The statute for many other lines dates from when the loss was or should have been discovered.This just encourages earlier attorney representation which will drive up claim costs
Steve r
I felt obligated to clarify that this would not be considered “crop insurance” as noted in your comments above. The issue is the vandalism to the insured’s planter, which would be covered under his/her “farm insurance” coverage.
The difference is that crop insurance covers damage to crops due to weather, disease, etc. Farm insurance, on the other hand, covers damage to equipment, buildings, etc.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The statute of limitation should apply to all, unless the law singles out farmers as being exempt from this statute. We always have very legitimate reasons for not doing things on time.
Stupid logic by the court.
Clearly they should make an exception for farms for this type of loss – not a strict statutory reading but a “knew or should have known” reasonable time period. If not in Dec 2002, then perhaps by mid-July 2002 when the failed plantings would have been noticeable in the field.
I’d take it a step further. The farm obviously took reasonable measures in filing the claim in a timely fashion.
I think the starting point of the statute of limitations should be from the initial denial of coverage. I’d be curious to know how long it took the insurer to respond to the claim, and if they left enough time for the insured to appropriately pursue recourse through filing of this suit.
Crop insurance may be different from the personal lines I am familiar with but this does not seem fair. The statute for many other lines dates from when the loss was or should have been discovered.This just encourages earlier attorney representation which will drive up claim costs
Steve r
I felt obligated to clarify that this would not be considered “crop insurance” as noted in your comments above. The issue is the vandalism to the insured’s planter, which would be covered under his/her “farm insurance” coverage.
The difference is that crop insurance covers damage to crops due to weather, disease, etc. Farm insurance, on the other hand, covers damage to equipment, buildings, etc.