Felder v. Federal Crop Ins. Corporation
Decision Date | 26 December 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 5305.,5305. |
Citation | 146 F.2d 638 |
Parties | FELDER v. FEDERAL CROP INS. CORPORATION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
P. L. Felder, Jr., of Orangeburg, S. C. (Felder & Rosen, of Orangeburg, S.C., on the brief), for appellant.
Louis M. Shimel, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, S. C. (Claud N. Sapp, U. S. Atty., of Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and CHESNUT, District Judge.
This is a civil action brought by M. H. Felder against the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to recover under a crop insurance policy which was issued to him under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1501-1518, hereinafter called the Act.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is an agency of and within the Department of Agriculture. Under the Act the Secretary of Agriculture and the Corporation were authorized to issue such Regulations as might be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, § 411.1 et seq. By the terms of the instant insurance contract, certain of these Regulations are incorporated as part of the contract. These provisions, when pertinent, will be set forth below.
On March 4, 1942, Felder, on proper forms, applied for cotton crop insurance. There is no question as to the existence of a valid contract. Nor is the question raised here as to whether the alleged loss was one covered by the contract of insurance.
On August 28 1942, Felder, in answer to an inquiry made August 24, 1942, by the County Administrative officer of the Corporation, notified the officer of an anticipated loss as a result of adverse weather conditions and damage by boll weevil. Felder admits, and the records show, that the last of his cotton crop was ginned October 14, 1942. On December 4, 1942, Felder was requested to appear at the local administrative office to sign an application for crop insurance loss. Felder testified that this application was signed by him on January 18, 1943. The carbon copy of this application (received by Felder) is blurred beyond recognition; however, the original copy, retained by the officer, bears the date of March 1, 1943. On February 17, 1943, Felder received a letter from the County Committee to the effect that no definite action had been taken in the matter. Later, on February 19, 1943, Felder received a letter from the County Committee requesting additional information. Finally, by letter of May 26, 1943, the County Committee definitely declined to entertain Felder's claim. Whereupon Felder instituted this action in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina. From a judgment entered against him on a directed verdict, Felder has duly appealed.
The sole question here is whether Felder sufficiently complied with the terms of his contract in making timely proof of loss.
Paragraph 13 of the application for insurance (identical with Section 411.9 of the Regulations under the Act) provides:
Further, paragraph 14 of the application (Identical with Section 411.10 of the Regulations under the Act) provides:
Thus it is clearly apparent that Felder, in order to recover here, must bring himself within the requirements of these two provisions. This he has failed to do.
Paragraph 13 patently prescribes three alternative events (whichever occurs first) with reference to which the time of loss may be established. These are: (1) Completion of weighing in of the insured crop at the gin; (2) disposal of the harvested crop if disposed of on or before January 21, 1943; (3) January 21, 1943 if harvested crop is retained after that date. (Words within brackets are added.)
Since Felder completed his ginning on October 14, 1942, under the first alternative, his loss was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R & R Farm Enterprises, Inc. v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., Dept. of Agriculture
...890 (burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that loss of production occurred during the policy period); Felder v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 146 F.2d 638, 639-40 (4th Cir.1944) (burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show timely filing of proof of loss claim). R & R's assertions to the cont......
-
Wilson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 92-4969
...of loss, there are definite times or events set out in the policies which trigger the notice requirement. For example, in Felder v. FCIC, 146 F.2d 638 (4th Cir.1944), notice of loss was to be given when the crop was weighed, disposed of, or by January 21, 1943--whichever came first. If the ......
-
Farm v. Diversified Crop Ins. Servs.
...Thus, these policies must adhere to governing regulations, which have the force of federal law. See Felder v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 146 F.2d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 1944); Byrne v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 289 F. Supp. 873, 874 (D. Minn. 1968); 7 C.F.R. § 400.168. Congress established the federal c......
-
Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bush
...Farm v. Diversified Crop Ins. Servs., No. 5:17-CV-513-D, 2018 WL 1474068, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2018) (citing Felder v. FCIC, 146 F.2d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 1944); Byrne v. FCIC, 289 F. Supp. 873, 874 (D. Minn. 1968)), aff'd, 917 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2019). Cf. FCIC v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, ......