Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Evaluation and Recommended Improvements of the 

Current Nursery Crop Insurance Program and 

Recommendations for Alternative Designs for 

Providing Insurance for Nursery Crops

Deliverable 2a: Final Nursery Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Deliverable 2b: Final Nursery Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Contract Number: D11PS18819/0001 

Submitted to: 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Risk Management Agency 

Product Administration and Standards Division 

Submitted by: 

Watts and Associates, Inc. 

4331 Hillcrest Road 

Billings, Montana 59101 

twatts@wattsandassociates.com 

DUNS # 112960633 

Watts and Associates, Inc., as a Contractor, has developed this material under contract with the United States Department of 

Agriculture and has exclusive ownership rights in part or all of its format and content. No material presented in any format, 

including orally, in print, or electronically, or that has been viewed, disseminated, or heard, may be further disseminated to 

any unauthorized person or entity. “Unauthorized person or entity” may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, any 

person who or entity that has no official connection to this project under the Federal government, or has not been authorized 

by Watts and Associates, Inc. to review a portion or all of this material. This material is protected by law. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Deliverable 2a: Final Nursery Program 

Evaluation Summary Report 

Watts and Associates, Inc., as a Contractor, has developed this material under contract with the United States Department of 

Agriculture and has exclusive ownership rights in part or all of its format and content. No material presented in any format, 

including orally, in print, or electronically, or that has been viewed, disseminated, or heard, may be further disseminated to 

any unauthorized person or entity. “Unauthorized person or entity” may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, any 

person who or entity that has no official connection to this project under the Federal government, or has not been authorized 

by Watts and Associates, Inc. to review a portion or all of this material. This material is protected by law.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

i

Table of Contents 

Section I. Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1

Section II. Data Collection Review .................................................................................................6

II.A. Background ........................................................................................................................6

II.B. Approach ..........................................................................................................................12

Section III. Listening Sessions .......................................................................................................15

Section IV. Industry Research Analysis ........................................................................................29

Section V. Program Evaluation Tool Findings ..............................................................................37

Section VI. Evaluation Component Analysis ................................................................................41

VI.A. Insurance Components ....................................................................................................41

VI.B. Policy File Review ..........................................................................................................76

Section VII. Unpublished Data report ...........................................................................................79

VII.A. Insurance Experience ....................................................................................................79

VII.B. Rating Review .............................................................................................................127

Section VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................150

List of Tables 

Table 1. Length of Nursery Program Eligible Plant Lists by Region ............................................30

Table 2. Operations Excluded from the Nursery Program and their Sales in 2007 .......................30

Table 3. Illustration of Effect of Failing to Limit Over-Report Factor to 0.00 ..............................63

Table 4. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Type for All Practices Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ....................................................81

Table 5. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Type for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ....................................................81

Table 6. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Type for Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ....................................................81

Table 7. Liability, Premium, and Indemnity per Policy Earning Premium Nursery 

1999 through 2011 ...........................................................................................................83

Table 8. Liability, Premium, and Indemnity per Unit Earning Premium Nursery 

1999 through 2011 ...........................................................................................................83

Table 9. Distribution of Liability, Policies Earning Premium, and Units Earning 

Premium by Year, 1999 through 2011 ............................................................................84

Table 10. Summary of Business Data for Nursery 1999 through 2011 All Practices 

Crop Years and Summary Information .........................................................................85

Table 11. Summary of Business Data for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Crop Years and Summary Information ..........................................87

Table 12. Summary of Business Data for Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Crop Years and Summary Information ..........................................88

Table 13. Loss Ratio Comparison by Practice by Year .................................................................89

Table 14. Top 11 States: Summary of Business Data by for All Practices Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ..................................................90

Table 15. Top 10 States: Summary of Business Data by for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ..................................................91

Table 16. Top 10 States: Summary of Business Data by for Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ..................................................91
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

ii

Table 17. Top 25 Counties: Summary of Business Data by for All Practices Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ..................................................93

Table 18. Top 25 Counties: Summary of Business Data by for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ..................................................94

Table 19. Top 25 Counties: Summary of Business Data by for Field Grown Practice 

Nursery 1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information ...................................95

Table 20. Summary of Business Data by Reporting Organization for All Practices 

Nursery 1999 through 2011 ...........................................................................................97

Table 21. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for All Practices Nursery 

1999 through 2011 .......................................................................................................100

Table 22. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice 

Nursery 1999 through 2011 .........................................................................................102

Table 23. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

Nursery 1999 through 2011 .........................................................................................102

Table 24. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for All Practices with Peak 

Endorsement Nursery 1999 through 2011 ...................................................................104

Table 25. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice 

with Peak Endorsement Nursery 1999 through 2011 ..................................................104

Table 26. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Peak Endorsement Nursery 1999 through 2011 ..................................................105

Table 27. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Rehabilitation Endorsement Nursery 1999 though 2011 ....................................107

Table 28. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for All Practices with Price 

Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 ...................................................................109

Table 29. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice 

with Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 .................................................109

Table 30. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 .................................................110

Table 31. Loss Ratio Comparisons for Policies with Price Endorsement Nursery 

2006 through 2011 .......................................................................................................111

Table 32. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Peak Endorsement, Price Endorsement, and Rehabilitation Endorsement 

Nursery 2006 through 2011 .........................................................................................112

Table 33. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Peak Endorsement and Rehabilitation Endorsement Nursery 

2006 through 2011 .......................................................................................................114

Table 34. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice 

with Peak Endorsement and Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 ............116

Table 35. Number of Policies Indemnified by Year and Cause of Loss Container 

Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011 ...........................................................................118

Table 36. Indemnities ($1,000) by Year and Cause of Loss Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 .......................................................................................................119

Table 37. Indemnities by Year and Cause of Loss Container Practice Nursery 

State of Florida 1999 through 2011 .............................................................................121

Table 38. Number of Policies Indemnified by Year and Cause of Loss Field 

Grown Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011 ...............................................................123
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

iii

Table 39. Indemnities by Year and Cause of Loss Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 .......................................................................................................124

Table 40. Indemnities ($1,000) by Year and Cause of Loss Field Grown Practice 

Nursery State of Florida 1999 through 2011 ...............................................................126

Table 41. Nursery Program Loss Ratio Credibility Summary Table – Container Practice .........146

Table 42. Nursery Program Loss Ratio Credibility Summary Table – Field Grown Practice ....147

Table 43. Program Cost Estimates ...............................................................................................148

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Annual Loss Ratio ........................................................................................................128

Figure 2. Annual Liability............................................................................................................129

Figure 3. Annual Earned Premium Rate ......................................................................................129

Figure 4. Frequency of Indemnity Payments ...............................................................................130

Figure 5. Average Severity of Indemnity Payments ....................................................................131

Figure 6. Annual Loss Ratio at Additional Coverage Levels ......................................................132

Figure 7. Annual Liability at Additional Coverage Levels..........................................................133

Figure 8. Annual Earned Premium Rate at Additional Coverage Levels ....................................134

Figure 9. Annual Indemnity Frequency at Additional Coverage Levels .....................................135

Figure 10. Annual Indemnity Average Severity at Additional Coverage Levels ........................135

Figure 11. Annual Earned Premium Rate at Additional Coverage Levels 

Restated to 2012 Premium Rate Levels .....................................................................136

Figure 12. Annual Loss Ratio Comparison for all Practices Restated to 

2012 Premium Rates – Nursery ..................................................................................137

Figure 13. Annual Comparison Actual Loss Ratio to Loss Ratio with 

Premium Rate Re-stated to 2012 Level – Field Grown .............................................138

Figure 14. Annual Comparison Actual Loss Ratio to Loss Ratio with 

Premium Rate Re-stated to 2012 Level – Container ..................................................139

Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 - 2011 ......................................................................140

Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011 .................................................................................140

Figure 17. Liability 1999 - 2011 ..................................................................................................140

Figure 18. Liability 2011 .............................................................................................................140

Figure 19. Indemnities Paid 1999 - 2011 .....................................................................................141

Figure 20. Loss Ratio 1999 - 2011...............................................................................................141

Figure 21. State Loss Ratios 1999 – 2011 ...................................................................................141

Figure 22. Florida Policies Earning Premium 1999 - 2011 .........................................................142

Figure 24. Florida Indemnities Paid 1999 - 2011 .......................................................................142

Figure 23. Florida Liability 1999 – 2011 .....................................................................................142

Figure 25. Florida Loss Ratios 1999 – 2011 ...............................................................................142

List of Appendices 

Appendix A. Program Evaluation Tool 

Appendix B. Stakeholder Comments by Theme and Source 

Exhibit 1. General Listening Session Agenda 

Exhibit 2. Stakeholder Comments 

Exhibit 3. Sources of Stakeholder Input 

Appendix C. Detailed Data Tables for the Rating Review 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

iv

List of Attachments 

Attachment I. 2008 Nursery Crop Provisions 

Attachment II. Nursery Peak Inventory Endorsement (08-073a) 

Attachment III. Nursery Crop Provisions Rehabilitation Endorsement (06-073b). 

Attachment IV. Nursery Growers Pilot Price Endorsement (06-073c) 

Attachment V. Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions 

Attachment VI. Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement 

Attachment VII. 2008 Nursery Crop Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook 

Attachment VIII. Loss Adjustment Manual Standards Handbook 

Attachment IX. Actuarial Materials 

Attachment X. Other Material Cited or Used in the Report 

Attachment Xa. Underwriting Guide 

Attachment Xb. Crop Insurance Handbook 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

1

SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report is an evaluation of the Nursery Crop Insurance Program (Nursery Program). The 

evaluation was produced under contract for the United States Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA). This section meets the requirements for the first 

section of an evaluation report as described in the RMA Program Evaluation Handbook (FCIC22010 (09-2005). 

Nursery crop insurance has been available since 1989, albeit in several different incarnations. 

Nursery crop insurance under the current Nursery Crop Provisions (08-073) is available in every 

state to anyone operating a nursery that produces field-grown or container-grown plants that are 

listed on published, regional listings of eligible plants, provided the nursery receives at least 50 

percent of its gross income from the wholesale marketing of nursery plants.1

 Participation in the 

Nursery Program measured by policies earning premium and insured liability have declined each 

year since 2008. There are no data that suggest a similar contraction of operations in the 

industry. Furthermore, about 75 percent of the liability insured is covered under the Catastrophic 

Risk Protection (CAT) Endorsement. 

The Contractor gathered information for the evaluation of the Nursery Program from a wide 

variety of relevant sources. These included published RMA documents, unpublished RMA data 

and documents, publications regarding the economic and agricultural characteristics of the 

nursery industry, and input from almost 200 stakeholders. Although it is impossible to calculate 

the precise economic size of the nursery industry eligible for insurance under the Nursery 

Program, it appears the insured liability in 2009 might represent as little as 25 percent of the 

wholesale value of sales from the industry segments that year. Since in many nurseries the 

insurable inventory includes production for more than one year of sales, the proportion of 

production value insured is even lower. 

The Contractor gathered stakeholder input during discussions with producers, governmental 

officials, insurance industry representatives, and other interested parties in ten listening sessions 

and engaged stakeholders in follow-up discussions. One hundred-forty-five stakeholders 

attended the listening sessions. These included 71 producers, 7 producer organization 

representatives, 46 insurance industry representatives, and 9 nursery industry extension agents. 

The remaining attendees were in attendance on behalf of the federal and state governments. The 

listening sessions discussions were driven by an agenda addressing the requirements of a crop 

insurance program evaluation. In spite of regional differences in the plants produced and 

management practices, stakeholder input consistently addressed three basic themes. First, the 

current program is perceived as excessively complex, and because of this complexity the 

program is difficult for stakeholders to understand. Second, the calendar of the insurance 

program does not seem to align with the nursery crop industry calendar in any region. The Sales 

Closing Date (SCD) was identified as coming at a difficult time for the industry in almost every 

region. Since the sign-up process involves so much more paperwork than typical crop insurance 

sign-up, the misalignment of the insurance year and the business calendar were identified as a 

particular problem. Finally, the DataScape software was identified as a major issue. The large 

amount of time required to maintain and enter an inventory in the format required by the 

 

1

 As with any insurance, there are eligibility requirements and restrictions that apply. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

2

DataScape software was especially noted. Stakeholders suggested, at a minimum, DataScape 

should be configured to communicate with other inventory software programs. Several 

stakeholders suggested doing away with DataScape entirely. From the perspective of some 

nursery industry stakeholders, the current approach to the insurance does not seem reasonable. 

The nursery segment of the U.S. agricultural industry is itself extraordinarily complex and 

diverse. Many nursery operations are vertically integrated. Nursery operations are performed to 

support wholesale and retail sales. In addition to production agriculture, nursery operations may 

provide processing, marketing, landscaping, and transportation services. Plants sold by 

producers in the nursery segment range in size from plants less than half an inch tall to fullygrown trees. 

Nursery crop production generally requires substantial inputs, particularly in the form of labor. 

Some elements of production are mechanized, but the range of mechanization varies enormously 

from operation to operation. The most marked change in the industry in the last ten years was 

the computerization of nursery production functions. Over a somewhat longer period there has 

been a tendency to move from long-term sales relationships focused on historical production 

patterns to “just-in-time” ordering and delivery. A consequence of this shift is producers may be 

producing new species and varieties more often than was the case 10 to 20 years ago. Except for 

field-grown operations, no producer indicated a commitment to the species that have been 

produced historically. Decisions about “planting” are driven by the markets. Yet, the Contractor 

did not identify specific structural changes in the industry that would impact the Nursery 

Program. Propagation of grafted plants continues to play an important role in the nursery 

industry in some regions. Consequently, the Contractor believes RMA should explore the 

possibility of insuring grafted production (but not failure of the graft itself) as a third practice. 

The Contractor completed all questions applicable to the crop, region, and plan of insurance 

based on the information obtained from listening sessions and the Contractor’s research and 

evaluation activities. A review of the completed program evaluation tool shows that the most 

notable element of the Nursery Program is complexity. The crop is complex. The producer 

population is widely scattered and characterized by an extreme range of financial resources and 

sophistication. The risks to the crops are limited, but occasional major losses have a substantial 

effect on the potential survival of individual operations. The marketing structure is complex; no 

single economic benchmark is tied to the industry’s performance (although housing starts affect 

portions of the industry). The complexity of the nursery industry is reflected in the structure and 

operation of the Nursery Program. Everyone who expressed an opinion, with the exception of 

one agent, would like to see the policy simplified. 

There are a number of contradictions and omissions within and among the insurance documents. 

Policy terms are included in documents that are not part of the contract as defined by the Basic 

Provisions. The Crop Provisions thus do not adequately establish the obligations of the insured 

and the insured does not have access to the information that establishes those obligations. For 

example, the LASH establishes an obligation that the basic unit value as documented on the 

Plant Inventory Value Report (PIVR) will equal the actual value of the inventory on the date the 

PIVR is filed; the Crop Provisions establish this obligation only for CAT coverage. The Crop 

Provisions state the insured may file not more than two revised PIVR; the LASH states that 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

3

certain revisions are not considered to be included in the two allowable revisions. If the Nursery 

Program is continued using the existing constructs, a substantial revision of the Crop Provisions 

should be undertaken to provide greater clarity so the obligations of the insured are better 

defined. The Contractor believes all the dates in the Nursery Program are reasonable in relation 

to the nature of the crop and the risk period. However, it is important to note that producers in 

every region indicated the SCD and the insurance period did not reflect the business cycle of 

nurseries. There is no simple solution to address this producer concern inasmuch as producers in 

different regions (and, for that matter, producers growing different species) have different ideas 

about what a correct insurance period should be. Perhaps continuous enrollment or SCDs that 

differ by region provide appropriate approaches. Alternatively, the concept of a fixed period of 

time applicable to all policies might be replaced by allowing renewals on the anniversary of the 

first application. In addition to concerns about the allocation of such policies to a reinsurance 

year, there are underwriting implications to this approach, such as knowledge a hurricane has 

formed and has the potential to affect the insured operation on the anniversary date. 

Nursery constitutes a small part of the total crop insurance program for all insurance parameters 

but one: its share of the total liability. Between 1999 and 2010, nursery averaged 6 percent of 

the total program liability, but only 0.3 percent of policies earning premium, 0.2 percent of units 

earning premium, and 1.2 percent of premiums earned. Nursery’s share of total premium was 

much lower than its share of total liability because the average earned premium rate was so much 

lower – only about one-fifth of the average earned premium rate for all other crops. This was 

due to two factors: a very high percentage of business at the CAT level and a much lower 

overall premium rate structure. This pattern is similar for both container and field grown 

practices. The container practice was the most frequently insured practice, with nearly 36,000 

policy-years of experience. The loss ratio was less than 1.00 for the entire program, but the loss 

ratio for the field grown practice was over 1.00. Nonetheless, nursery also had a very small 

share of the indemnities paid by the crop insurance program in total. Less than 0.1 percent of 

policies and units earning premium were indemnified. Nursery indemnities constituted 1.6 

percent of all indemnities paid by the program from 1999 through 2010. Hurricane, freeze, and 

excess moisture accounted for 86 percent of the policies indemnified and 89 percent of the 

indemnity value. Flood accounted for only about three percent of policies indemnified but the 

amount of indemnities associated with flood was nearly equal to the indemnities paid for excess 

moisture. A Peak Inventory Endorsement, a Nursery Grower’s Price Option, and a 

Rehabilitation Endorsement are offered under the Nursery Program. The volume of business 

under these optional plans is small, in part because of restrictions on their purchase. 

The Contractor conducted a comprehensive premium rate review for the Nursery Program 

pursuant to the requirements of the Program Evaluation Handbook. The review compared the 

current premium rate structure to the historical loss experience. The container and field grown 

practices are considered separately. Analysis of the historical experience of the Nursery Program 

and analysis of what the historical experience may have been at 2012 premium rate levels for 

additional coverage levels leads to the conclusion that substantial increases in premium rate 

levels are warranted for a few state and practice combinations, particularly some of the states 

with the largest participation numbers, and modest decreases should be made in premium rate 

levels for the remaining states. However, it may be that events which have an actual frequency 

lower than the observed frequency have been included in the history used for the analysis and 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

4

therefore increases in premium rates may be overstated. Nonetheless, a process which includes 

modest increases in premiums over a period of many years and that can be adjusted as additional 

performance information is gained will limit the effects on producers. It is also worth noting that 

these analyses were made ceteris paribus, without consideration to the recommended changes to 

underwriting contained in this report. 

An acceptable insurance risk does exist for nursery crop production. The Contractor believes 

replacement of the current unwieldy and ill-fitting structure for determining liability is an option 

RMA should consider. This is discussed in some detail in Deliverable 1b. Considering the 

scope and structure of the contract controlling this evaluation project, the remaining Contractor 

recommendations focus on the continuation of the Nursery Program with modifications. 

Regarding continuation of the Nursery Program with modifications, the Contractor has no 

recommendation that affects the Federal Crop Insurance Act, or any fundamental element of the 

Crop Insurance Handbook (CIH), the FCI-35 documents, or the Loss Adjustment Manual 

(LAM). The Contractor’s recommendation regarding continuation of the Nursery Program with 

modifications do affect the regulations published at 7 CFR 457.162 (the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Provisions). 

Recommendations affecting the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, the Loss Adjustment 

Standards Handbook (LASH), the Underwriting Guide, and the LAM to improve clarity and 

remove ambiguities are incorporated here by reference to the preceding component discussions. 

As noted earlier, the Contractor believes adjustments to the rate structure are prudent. 

Furthermore, the Contractor recommends RMA consider adding Grafting/Grafted Nursery Plants 

as a practice under the Nursery Crop Provisions. The present Nursery Crop Provisions 

specifically exclude stock plants “grown solely for harvest of buds” (08-073 (Rev. 10-06), 

section 8(i)). Therefore, the plants from which the scion is harvested, perhaps the most valuable 

assets in nursery operations that propagate grafted plants, are not insurable. Furthermore, 

rootstock is generally uninsurable in its earliest stages because of size limitations. Finally, when 

the grafted plants are pruned to stimulate growth of the scion the grafted plants are often much 

less than six inches tall and therefore again fall outside the size that is insurable. Grafted nursery 

plants play an important role in the U.S. food supply. Inasmuch as nursery insurance exists at 

all, insuring important elements of the agricultural economy that addresses food supply is 

appropriate. Finally, the management practices for grafting/grafted nursery plants are better 

defined than are the practices for many nursery crops. Thus barriers to implementing insurance 

for this practice are neither structural nor contrary to legislation. This recommendation does not 

extend to insuring failure of the graft.

The Contractor heard repeatedly that loss adjusters were not aware of nursery practices and could 

therefore not properly adjust losses. This deficiency seems to derive from the need to identify 

the extent of damage on individual plants. The repeated nature of this complaint indicates that 

frequently the requirements of section 7B of the Nursery LASH (FCIC-25750 (1-2011)) may not 

be met. If the current asset-based insurance is to be maintained, it is essential that the loss 

adjustment processes be changed so those who have suffered a loss believe the outcome of the 

loss adjustment process is fair and reasonable. To this end, the Contractor recommends RMA 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

5

require knowledgeable nurserymen be included in the loss adjustment process (the present 

language in section 7B of the LASH is permissive). The Contractor also recommends revising 

the approach for dealing with nursery plants that are perceived to have residual value greater 

than zero. These recommendations are necessary to gain acceptance by nursery growers of the 

validity of loss adjustment determinations. The Contractor further recommends RMA add a loss 

example tool to the portfolio of Nursery Program materials. This tool would be structured to 

allow potential insureds to see the impact of decisions about coverage levels and purchase of 

endorsements on indemnities following various hypothetical loss events. 

The Contractor recommends producers be allowed to declare fields containing fewer plants than 

the number present under the typical planting density multiplied by some fraction, such as 0.20,

as uninsurable. Following a loss, specific issues arise for producers of field-grown nursery 

plants because of the requirement that all production for a practice be insured. In a field that has 

suffered substantial damage, where a small number of mature plants are being rehabilitated, the 

production may be so sparse as not to justify full management of the field. Producers may be 

waiting to see what develops and to understand better their options with the few salvageable 

plants remaining in the field. Instead of focusing on salvage activity in these severely damaged 

fields, producers are addressing their limited resources to reestablishing the nursery inventory. 

Both producers and knowledgeable agents indicated including the remaining plants in a damaged 

field as insurable production makes no sense from the perspective of managing a nursery 

business. This change would allow a producer to address resources to new acreage, and direct 

the insurance to productive acreage. 

Finally, producers and agents suggested contract pricing be made available under the Nursery 

Program for plants produced under contract. This suggestion is interesting and amenable to 

research. However, research into a potential contract pricing structure is well beyond the scope 

of this evaluation contract. In the absence of results from such research, the Contractor cannot 

recommend implementing contract pricing. However, the Contractor recommends RMA support 

a project to determine the feasibility of contract pricing for nursery crop production, but also 

recommends the proposed research be conducted after resolution of the fate of the current 

Nursery Program. 

In summary, the Nursery Program should be continued for the near term with substantial 

modifications. The insurance documents for this program need to be carefully revised to limit 

conflicts and to assure the policy components provide a clear contract understood by both the 

insured and the insurer. The loss adjustment process needs to be modified to assure loss 

adjustment is fair and appropriate. The Contractor further recommends the addition of Grafted 

Production as a practice and a continuous enrollment to address concerns about the SCD. While 

concerns about the offer of CAT coverage raises some important issues, the correct 

recommendation concerning CAT may be masked by the inappropriate rebating of commissions 

that is occurring in some areas. For the near-term, the Contractor does not recommend 

eliminating CAT coverage. However, the Contractor does recommend that issue be revisited if 

the current Nursery Program is not replaced by one or more substantially different risk 

management products such as those discussed in Deliverable 1b. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

6

SECTION II. DATA COLLECTION REVIEW 

This report documents an evaluation of the Nursery Program. The report was produced after a 

thorough review of published material, stakeholder input, and unpublished data relevant to the 

program. This section of the evaluation report addresses the requirement that: 

“The second section of the report shall contain the findings of the Initial Data 

Collection review, including the descriptive program summary. All conflicts, 

ambiguities, inconsistencies, gaps, duplications, or other problems that exist 

within the document and among other documents will be described.”2

II.A. Background 

RMA awarded a contract3for an evaluation of the current USDA RMA Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program to the Contractor. In addition, the contract calls upon the Contractor to make 

recommendations concerning alternatives for providing insurance for nursery crops. The 

Contractor completed the program evaluation, addressing the terms of the contract, RMA’s 

Program Evaluation Handbook, and relevant portions of the Crop Insurance Act (U.S. Code Title 

7, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1508 as amended, hereinafter “the Act”). Inasmuch as 

significant content in Deliverable 2a, the Final Nursery Program Evaluation Summary Report, 

informs the discussions in Deliverable 2b, the Final Nursery Program Recommended 

Improvements Report, the two elements of Deliverable 2 are provided to RMA together in a 

single volume. 

In the Solicitation, RMA provided background on the Nursery Crop Insurance Program as 

context for the program review project: 

“The nursery crop insurance program began in 1989. The initial program only 

covered container grown plants that were classified as woody, herbaceous, or 

foliage landscape plants. Effective for the 1999 and 2006 crop years, significant 

changes to the Nursery Crop Insurance Provisions were made that greatly 

expanded and modified coverage under the program. The program functions as 

an asset‐based form of insurance coverage. In contrast to many crop insurance 

programs (e.g., wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, etc), coverage is not based on a 

yield guarantee that is established using a historical average crop yield per acre. 

Likewise, the nursery program is not a form of revenue insurance coverage (e.g., 

Adjusted Gross Revenue and Crop Revenue Coverage). No minimum income 

guarantee is established. Loss of revenue due to plant price fluctuation is not 

covered under the nursery program. 

“The nursery crop insurance program is available to wholesale nursery 

producers to assist in their management of nursery plant production risks against 

losses from specific perils. A wholesale nursery is defined as receiving 50% of its 

gross income from the wholesale marketing of plants. (The dollar amount of 

wholesale plant sales is divided by the total dollar amount of wholesale and retail 

plant sales to calculate the percentage of wholesale sales.) The FCIC nursery 

program covers field grown and containerized nursery plants. Structures, 

 

2

 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 12. 

3

 Contract D11PS18819/0001: Evaluation and Recommended Improvements of the Current Nursery Crop Insurance Program 

and Recommendations for Alternative Designs for Providing Insurance for Nursery Crops. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

7

equipment, supplies, etc. are not covered. Additional levels of coverage [i.e., buyup coverage] and catastrophic risk protection (CAT) are available under the 

program.”

The Nursery Program differs materially from the norm for most other crop insurance programs. 

It is substantially more complex than most programs and is based on assets rather than yields. 

While there are other asset-based FCIC programs (e.g., Florida Fruit Trees, Texas Citrus Trees, 

Hawaii Tropical Trees, and the Cultivated Clams Pilot programs), the Nursery Program is far 

more complex than these others, primarily because of the numbers of types, the numbers of 

species and varieties covered, and the wide range of sizes of plants (and consequently of the 

values of these plants) that are insurable. In addition, the insured objects in the tree programs are 

immobile, while containerized nursery crops are quite mobile (both as an effect of natural 

disasters like floods and wind storms and as a consequence of human actions). 

Consequently, the Nursery Program is based on a valuation per plant at specifically defined 

stages (age or size), type and size of container (if container grown), and management practice 

(container-grown or field-grown). In the solicitation for this contract, RMA indicated there were 

approximately 25,500 insurable plants on the Eligible Plant List and Plant Price Schedule (EPL 

PPS) for the 2010 crop year.4

 That number is a measure of the complexity of the insurance and 

reflects the numbers of species, varieties, and plant sizes that are insurable. 

The current Nursery Program has even greater complexity as a result of significant adjustments 

to the Crop Provisions made in the Special Provisions. Some statements in the Special 

Provisions change definitions used in the insurance. Others add features to the insurance not 

mentioned in the Crop Provisions (e.g., the over-report factor, although this factor is discussed in 

the Underwriting Guide (FCIC 24090 (1-2011)). 

With regard to establishing insurance, the insured is required to file a Plant Inventory Value 

Report (PIVR). This document is comparable to an acreage report (i.e., it contains the 

information needed to establish liability). For the purposes of maintaining the EPL PPS and 

underwriting the individual policies, the insured provides two copies of the insured’s wholesale 

catalogs.5 The prices of plants for insurance purposes may not exceed the lesser of the prices 

established by the insured’s catalog or uniform national values contained in the EPL PSS issued 

by RMA. The PIVR must report the total value of the inventory of each of up to 16 insurable 

plant types. Yet that inventory is subject to sale and replacement during the insurance period. 

This inserts an added complicating factor into any design of a nursery insurance program. 

Since an insured’s inventory fluctuates during a crop year, the insured is given two opportunities 

to revise the PIVR, but only to increase liability (i.e., if the inventory decreases, a revision is not 

allowed). The premium for the increased PIVR value is calculated from the month the increase 

is effective until the end of the insurance year. Insureds whose policies have additional coverage 

for all practices (i.e., container-grown or field-grown) can also purchase a Peak Inventory 

Endorsement (PIE) to provide coverage higher than that reported on the initial PIVR for a 

 

4

 Solicitation: Attachment – Operation of Current Nursery Crop Insurance Program, page 1. 

5

 The Nursery Program uses the phrase “catalog or price list” repeatedly throughout the program documents. This report uses 

the term “catalog” to mean any document containing nursery plant prices maintained by a nursery. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

8

limited period during the insurance year. The premium for the PIE is calculated for the months 

the Endorsement is effective (i.e., it does not need to run to the end of the insurance year). 

The crop provisions detail the insurable causes of loss under the Nursery Program: 

Causes of Loss. 

(a) In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Basic Provisions, 

insurance is provided for unavoidable damage caused only by the following 

causes of loss that occur within the insurance period: 

(1) Adverse weather conditions, except as specified in section 10(c) or the 

Special Provisions; 

(2) Fire, provided weeds and undergrowth in the vicinity of the plants or 

buildings on your insured site are controlled by chemical or mechanical 

means; 

(3) Wildlife; 

(4) Earthquake; or 

(5) Volcanic eruption. 

(b) Insurance is also provided against the following if due to a cause of loss 

specified in section 10(a) that occurs within the insurance period: 

(1) A loss in plant values because of an inability to market such plants, 

provided such plants would have been marketed during the crop year (e.g. 

poinsettias that are not marketable during their usual and recognized 

marketing period of November 1st through December 25th); 

(2) Failure of the irrigation water supply; or 

(3) Failure of, or reduction in, the power supply. 

(c) In addition to the causes of loss excluded in sections 12(a) and (c) through (f) 

of the Basic Provisions, we do not insure against any loss caused by: 

(1) Disease or insect infestation, unless: 

(i) A disease or insect infestation occurs for which no effective control 

measure exists; or 

(ii) Coverage is specifically provided by the Special Provisions. 

(2) The inability to market the nursery plants as a result of: 

(i) The refusal of a buyer to accept production; 

(ii) Boycott; or 

(iii) An order from a public official prohibiting sales including, but not 

limited to, a stop sales order, quarantine, or phytosanitary restriction 

on sales; 

(3) Cold temperatures, if cold protection is required in the Eligible Plant List, 

unless: 

(i) You have installed adequate cold protection equipment or facilities and 

there is a failure or breakdown of the cold protection equipment or 

facilities resulting from an insurable cause of loss specified in section 

10(a) (the insured plants must be damaged by cold temperatures and 

the damage must occur within 72 hours of the failure of such 

equipment or facilities unless we establish that repair or replacement 

was not possible between the time of failure or breakdown and the 

time the damaging temperatures occurred); or 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

9

(ii) The lowest temperature or its duration exceeded the ability of the 

required cold protection equipment to keep the insured plants from 

sustaining cold damage; 

(4) Collapse or failure of buildings or structures, unless the damage to the 

building or structures results from a cause of loss specified in section 

10(a); 

(5) Any cause of loss, including those specified in section 10(a), if the only 

damage suffered is a failure of plants to grow to an expected size; or 

(6) In lieu of section 12(b) of the Basic Provisions, failure to follow 

recognized good nursery practices.6

Should a loss occur, the adjustment procedures require two additional inventories be created. 

The first establishes a basis for determining the value of all plants insured under the policy at the 

time of the loss (the Field Market Value A or FMV A), while the second establishes a basis for 

determining the value of the insured plants after a loss (the Field Market Value B or FMV B). 

The positive difference between the two values (FMV A minus FMV B) is the loss for the 

purpose of insurance.7 The coverage level and factors reflecting the accuracy and precision of 

the inventory establishing the insured liability (i.e., the initial or revised PIVR) are then used to 

assess if the amount of loss so determined should be reduced. 

The Program Evaluation 

Program evaluations are intended to establish if RMA programs are sound and effective risk 

management tools and if these programs meet the needs of producers. They are also intended to 

determine that relevant provisions of the Act are met effectively and efficiently. The Act 

contains the following language RMA specifically identifies as relevant to the program review 

mission: 

Section 502(a) states: “It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the national 

welfare by improving the economic stability of agriculture through a sound 

system of crop insurance and providing the means for the research and 

experience helpful in devising and establishing such insurance.” 

Section 508(a) (1) states: “If sufficient actuarial data are available (as 

determined by the Corporation), the Corporation may insure producers of 

agricultural commodities under 1 or more plans of insurance determined to 

be adapted to the agricultural commodity concerned.” 

Section 508(i) (2) states: “Review of rating methodologies. To maximize 

participation in the Federal crop insurance program and to ensure equity for 

producers, the Corporation shall periodically review the methodologies 

employed for rating plans of insurance under this chapter consistent with 

section 1507(c)(2) of this title.8”

 

6

 USDA, RMA, 2008, Nursery Crop Provisions (08-073), pp. 5-6.

7

 Since unreported plants may be lost or plants not insured because the unit structure may be lost, the insured may have a 

financial loss that is markedly different from the loss for insurance purposes. This is no different from other asset-based 

insurance (e.g., home-owners content insurance) in that uninsured assets may be lost without affecting the size of the 

indemnity payment. 

8

 Section 507(c)(2) refers to contracting for actuarial, loss adjustment, and other services. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

10

Section 508(i) (3) states: “Analysis of rating and loss history. The Corporation 

shall analyze the rating and loss history of approved policies and plans of 

insurance for agricultural commodities by area.” 

Section 506(o) (2) states: “The Corporation shall take such actions, including the 

establishment of adequate premiums, as are necessary to improve the 

actuarial soundness of Federal multiperil crop insurance made available 

under this chapter to achieve, on and after October 1, 1998, an overall 

projected loss ratio of not greater than 1.075.” 

Section 522(a) (3) states: “The Corporation shall approve a 

reimbursement...only after determining that the policy is marketable based on 

a reasonable marketing plan, as determined by the Board.”9

RMA provides substantial guidance concerning the form of the report addressing an

evaluation of a crop insurance program. The Program Evaluation Handbook describes 

the structure of the evaluation report in detail:

(1) The first section of the report shall be an Executive Summary. This summary 

will contain the recommendations together with a brief justification for each. 

(2) The second section of the report shall contain the findings of the Initial Data 

Collection review, including the descriptive program summary. All conflicts, 

ambiguities, inconsistencies, gaps, duplications, or other problems that exist 

within the document and among other documents will be described. 

(3) The third section of the report shall contain the findings of the listening 

sessions held in conjunction with the Program Evaluation....In addition to 

conducting listening sessions as part of its research, the respective RMA 

Regional Offices and RMA Compliance Offices – separately – shall also be 

contacted for their comments regarding the program.... 

(4) The fourth section of the report shall contain the findings of the industry 

research analysis. A primary focus of the discussion should be structural 

changes in the industry and their potential impact on the crop insurance 

program under review. 

(5) The fifth section of the report shall contain a thorough discussion of the 

findings from use of the Program Evaluation Tool. The Program Evaluation 

Tool is designed to address basic insurability questions, such as perceived 

risk, availability of alternative risk sharing mechanisms, etc. The tool should 

be completed for each region of production, based on information obtained 

from the listening sessions, RMA Regional Offices and Compliance Offices, 

analysis of the program, and other sources. A copy of the completed 

diagnostic form for each production/pilot region should be included in an 

appendix to the report. 

(6) The sixth section of the report shall contain the findings of the Evaluation 

Components analysis. Themes developed while investigating these topics will 

be described as will the potential or probable impact upon the crop program’s 

performance. Data contained in this section must be highly summarized. 

Discussions shall focus on the meaning of the data and not upon describing 

 

9

 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 11-12. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

11

the numbers. More detailed tables, maps and graphs will be included in an 

Appendix. All conflicts, ambiguities, inconsistencies, gaps, duplications, or 

other problems that exist within and among the documents should be 

thoroughly documented. 

(7) The seventh section of the report shall contain the results of the Unpublished 

Data Report findings detailing the statistical analysis of the performance of 

the crop program. 

(8) The eighth section of the report shall contain the conclusions and 

recommendations. Particularly salient conclusions will be whether (1) an 

acceptable insurance risk does or does not exist, and (2) the plan of insurance 

is appropriate for the crop. The recommendations shall be subdivided into 

individual sections dealings with changes in statute, in regulations, in the 

actuarial documents, and in procedures. Each section shall contain content 

as described in section 6. If it is concluded that a new (or replacement) plan 

of insurance should be adopted for the crop, recommendations of sufficient 

detail to allow development shall be provided in this section.10

The USDA RMA Program Evaluation Handbook (FCIC 22010 (09-2005), p. 12) further 

indicates: 

The outcome of a program evaluation is a determination that an acceptable 

insurance risk does or does not exist. An acceptable insurance risk may exist 

when (1) an actuarially sound premium can be determined and charged to 

customers who are willing to accept that price, (2) the customers cannot 

substantially adversely select against the program, (3) moral and morale hazards 

are avoidable or controllable, (4) there is sufficient interest to spread risk over an 

acceptable number of insured persons and geographic area, (5) effective loss 

control methods are available, and (6) the covered perils are identified by 

frequency and severity. 

The program evaluation may result in recommendations to revise any regulation, 

manual, handbook, guide, directive, or actuarial structure to address identified 

conflicts, ambiguities, inconsistencies, gaps, duplications, or other problems. 

Ultimately, the program evaluation identifies needed modifications to assure that 

the program provides an effective and efficient risk management program to 

agricultural producers; has documents that are clear, consistent, in accordance 

with the applicable law and regulations, understandable, predictable, and 

enforceable; that minimizes the potential for fraud, waste, and abuse; that 

optimizes risk transfer; is actuarially sound; and that reduces the risk of 

litigation. In certain cases, the program evaluation may recommend development 

of a replacement plan of insurance if is determined that the existing program is 

not appropriate for the insured commodity and/or does not provide an effective 

risk management tool. 11

 

10 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 26-27. 

11 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), p. 12. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

12

The Contractor endeavored to address these disparate requirements fully and effectively. In 

addition, with regard to potential alternative insurance designs, the Government requested the 

Contractor “think outside the box.” The structure of such thoughts is less constrained by existing 

procedures and regulations than by logic and potential opportunities for improving the risk 

management tools for nursery producers. Consequently, the text addressing Deliverable 2b, the 

Final Nursery Program Recommended Improvements Report, is less rigid in its structure and 

flow than is the language for the program evaluation itself. The approach taken in Deliverable 

2b is conceptually identical to a “brainstorming” session, wherein no ideas are dismissed a 

priori, but instead are each idea is viewed as potentially triggering other ideas or leading to a 

synthesis of multiple ideas. 

II.B. Approach 

The Contractor gathered information for the completion of this report from a wide variety of 

sources. These included RMA documents relevant to the evaluation, unpublished RMA data, 

publications relevant to the economic and agricultural characteristics of the nursery industry, and 

input from almost 200 stakeholders. 

The Contractor obtained and reviewed information concerning the implementation and 

maintenance of the Nursery Program from public sources. The Contractor also obtained and 

reviewed documents provided by RMA in response to a request for materials relevant to this 

review. The expansions of and substantive changes in the Nursery Program are complex, but 

well documented. The changes in insurance experience over time, as documented in the Types 

11, 15, and 21 records, reflect these program changes and provide substantial data to inform a 

reviewer of the effects of program changes. 

Crop production data are less easily obtained. The nursery segment of the U.S. agricultural 

industry is extraordinarily complex. Activities in the segment include propagation and sale of 

commercial, ornamental (i.e., patio and houseplant), and landscape plants. Nursery production is 

sold directly into retail markets and to a variety of wholesale markets (production agriculture, 

landscapers, retail outlets, etc.). Many nursery operations are vertically integrated, including 

production agriculture, processing, marketing, and transportation activities. Plants sold by 

producers in the nursery segment range in size from tiny plants to trees whose caliper and size 

allow the creation of instant landscapes. Nursery plants include monocots (grasses and palms) 

and dicots (broad-leafed plants); conifers, cycads, ferns, and flowering plants; they include 

annuals, biennials, and perennials. Some nursery crops are evergreen, others are deciduous. 

This diversity is reflected in the fact that the EPL PPS is extensive; RMA indicated the 2010 

EPL PPS listed 25,500 plants.12 

The 2007 Census of Agriculture reported almost $144 billion of crops (including nursery and 

greenhouse crops) sold in the United States.13

 Of that amount, more than $16.6 billion was 

attributed to nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod production14 on 50,784 operations. The 

Nursery Program specifically excludes certain categories of production from the Census 

 

12 Solicitation: Attachment – Operation of Current Nursery Crop Insurance Program, page 1. 

13 USDA, NASS, 2009, Census of Agriculture, Table 1, page 7. 

14 This figure does not include production values for short rotation woody crops and Christmas trees, which are included in some 

census reports of nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod crops. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

13

“Nursery, Greenhouse, Floriculture, and Sod” categories. The Nursery Program also excludes 

operations that do not have at least 50 percent of their gross income from sales into wholesale 

nursery crop markets. Data on the wholesale/retail breakdown of nursery crop sales are not 

generally available in any form that would allow a precise assessment of the sales from nursery 

crop production eligible for insurance under the Nursery Program. 

The 2009 Census of Horticultural Specialties (Horticulture Census) was a follow-up survey to 

the 2007 Census of Agriculture and surveyed all operations that reported horticultural crop sales 

of $10,000 or more on the 2007 Census. The Horticulture Census addresses crops including 

aquatic plants, bedding plants, Christmas trees, commercial vegetable transplants, cut cultivated 

florist greens, cut flowers, dry bulbs, flower seeds, greenhouse-produced vegetables, ground 

covers, potted flowering plants, propagation materials, short-rotation woody crops (e.g., 

pulpwood crops), shrubs, sod, trees (including fruit and nut trees), unfinished or pre-finished 

plants, vegetable seeds, vines, and other nursery or greenhouse plants. For the purposes of crop 

insurance, nursery crops exclude plants grown to produce Christmas trees, cut flowers, cut 

greens, dry bulbs, fruits (as opposed to fruit plants), seeds, short-rotation woody crops, and 

vegetables (as opposed to vegetable plants), but include the other horticultural categories in 

addition to the specific grouping the Horticulture Census categorizes as “nursery crops.” As 

noted previously, plants grown on operations with more than 50 percent of their sales into retail 

markets are also not insurable under the Nursery Program. Consequently comparing populations 

and values between the Horticulture Census and the Nursery Program is challenging at best and 

impossible in the worst cases. Nonetheless, there is much useful information regarding the 

nursery industry (for the purposes of crop insurance) that can be gleaned from the Horticulture 

Census. These are reported in the industry research analysis section of this report. 

The concepts of planted and harvested acres are meaningless in the nursery crop industry. There 

is no set planting period and harvests of selected individual plants from a productive field are 

common. Spacing for containerized plants changes as the plants grow and as they are repotted 

and repositioned in the nursery. Consequently no data on these characteristics are presented in 

this report. 

The best data on production by county, type, and practice are those in the Horticulture Census. 

The limited frequency of data collection for that census and the issues with nursery industry 

segmentation (i.e., segments the Horticulture Census includes that are excluded from 

participation in the Nursery Program) make the industry profile that can be gleaned from the 

Horticulture Census a snapshot at best. A separate survey would be required to make that 

snapshot a high-resolution picture of the nursery industry as defined by the Nursery Program. 

The Contractor is precluded from conducting such a survey by the Paperwork Reduction Act and 

by the scope of the contract. 

The Contractor reviewed the nursery industry literature to identify pertinent economic or 

industry studies performed by the Economic Research Service (ERS), the Cooperative State 

Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), industry trade groups, and other 

authoritative sources. The results of this research are reflected primarily in the industry research 

analysis section of this report. The nursery industry, as defined by the Nursery Program, is too 

diverse and segmented to be addressed in any single report from any of these sources. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

14

Furthermore, industry perceptions of the structure of the nursery industry and the structure under 

the Nursery program are not congruent. An excellent example of this is the number of industry 

associations that address nursery and landscaping together. Landscaping businesses are not 

insurable under the Nursery Program. 

Stakeholder input was gathered in nine onsite listening sessions; a telephonic listening session; 

numerous telephone interviews, unsolicited telephone calls, and written and email comments. 

The Contractor extended invitations to RMA Regional and Compliance Offices for additional 

input. In gathering stakeholder input, specific emphasis was placed on identifying program 

vulnerabilities and weaknesses. The listening sessions were conducted to comply with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The stakeholders providing input included producers, nursery managers, processors, insurance 

agents, Approved Insurance Provider (AIP) executives, RMA personnel, and academic 

researchers. The majority of respondents (though not the majority in every venue) were 

producers. 

The Contractor found producers of insurable nursery crops are generally aware of the Nursery 

Program, although smaller producers are less likely to know of the program than larger 

producers. Knowledgeable producers who elect to participate in the program do so in large part 

because of their concern about severe weather risks. Knowledgeable producers who elect not to 

participate do so primarily because of the complexity of the insurance and their perception of the 

limited benefits available from insurance coverage they consider “affordable.” Producers 

generally indicated the Nursery Program was burdensome, flawed, and difficult to use. 

Furthermore, producers indicated that indemnity payments from the Nursery Program provide 

financial resources for “starting over” rather than for “continuing on.” This likely reflects the 

substantial use of CAT coverage instead of additional coverage levels. 

The Contractor completed all questions in the Program Evaluation Tool applicable to nursery 

crops by region based on the information obtained from listening sessions and the Contractor’s 

research and evaluation activities. A discussion of the findings from the use of the Program 

Evaluation Tool is found in the fifth section of this report. Copies of the completed Program 

Evaluation Tool diagnostic questionnaire for each region are included in Appendix A of the 

report. 

Following completion of the evaluation of the Nursery program, the Contractor organized the 

information required by the Program Evaluation Handbook to reflect the structure and flow 

outlined by that document. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

15

SECTION III. LISTENING SESSIONS 

This section of the evaluation report addresses the requirement that: 

“The third section of the report shall contain the findings of the listening sessions 

held in conjunction with the Program Evaluation....In addition to conducting 

listening sessions as part of its research, the respective RMA Regional Offices 

and RMA Compliance Offices – separately – shall also be contacted for their 

comments regarding the program....”15

The Contractor gathered stakeholder input during discussions with producers, governmental 

officials, insurance industry representatives, and other interested stakeholders. The Contractor 

conducted nine onsite listening sessions, including sessions in Annapolis, Maryland (May 20, 

2011); Homestead, Florida (July 28, 2011); Apopka, Florida (July 29, 2011); McMinnville, 

Tennessee (October 13, 2011); San Marcos, California (October 31, 2011); Davis, California 

(November 1, 2011); Wilsonville, Oregon (November 3, 2011); Richland, Washington 

(November 4, 2011); and Tyler, Texas (November 16, 2011). The Contractor also conducted a 

telephonic listening session for North Carolina stakeholders on June 29, 2011 and participated in 

follow-up discussions with stakeholders. One hundred-forty-five stakeholders attended the 

listening sessions. These included 71 producers, 7 producer organization representatives, 46 

insurance industry representatives, and 9 nursery industry extension agents. The remaining 

attendees were there on behalf of the federal and state governments. The listening sessions were 

conducted in a manner consistent with the constraints imposed by the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Consequently the discussion was driven by an agenda (see Appendix B for a sample listening 

session agenda) rather than by a set of questions. 

To ensure appropriate timing and proper location of the listening sessions, each session was 

scheduled following recommendations from regional nursery producer organizations and with 

the assistance of AIP contacts familiar with the Nursery Program. While the listening sessions 

were scheduled for one and one half to two hours, the Contractor did not suggest an end to the 

discussions; instead sessions were ended when all stakeholders had the opportunity to comment 

on the program and no additional comments were forthcoming. 

Some stakeholder concerns were consistent throughout the country, while others were regional. 

Producers in every region indicated it was essential to understand that nursery crop production 

does not follow the practices of row crops. Producers in every region said one of the primary 

motivations for participation in the Nursery Program is to assure they have access to federal 

disaster programs. Furthermore, both producers and agents indicated the Nursery Program was 

burdensome and that change would be welcome. 

Annapolis, Maryland 

The Maryland Nursery and Landscape Association and the Maryland Department of Agriculture 

assisted with recruitment of stakeholders from a region including five states (Delaware, 

Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). Sixteen stakeholders attended this listening 

session: eight producers, two representatives from the Maryland Nursery and Landscape 

 

15 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 12. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

16

Association; two extension agents; two insurance industry stakeholders; and two state agency 

stakeholders. 

The first stakeholder comment, from a producer, was that the program was too complicated and 

requires more work than any other type of crop insurance program. An insurance industry 

stakeholder then indicated the program does not appropriately address either producer or agent 

financial considerations. A follow-up comment suggested the insurance is not structured to 

reflect the cash flow of nurseries. An example of this is the value of the crop and the input costs 

are not reflected in the values in the PIVR/CIVR. Both the insurance and producer stakeholders 

commented that currently DataScape requires too much time to enter the required information. 

In addition, the list of eligible varieties in DataScape is not up-to-date. The producer 

stakeholders stated the inventory pricing provided by the government does not accurately 

represent the current market prices. The producer stakeholders opined that neither the cost of the 

insurance nor the premiums of the buy-up policy reflect the risk in the Maryland area; the 

producers believe the current premiums are higher than the risk they perceive. The producer 

stakeholders commented that their inventory is always changing, therefore creating difficult 

situations for inventory recordkeeping. The stakeholders continued that when a preliminary 

inspection occurs, it is at a time when the nursery inventory has changed, thus the inventory at 

inspection does not reflect the inventory when the producer signed up for insurance. 

Furthermore, the SCD does not currently align with the calendar of nursery industry practices in 

the Mid-Atlantic States. One producer commented that when loss adjusters came to evaluate a 

loss, the adjuster declared plants salvageable even though they were severely damaged and not 

saleable in any wholesale market. This was attributed to a general lack of knowledge about the 

nursery industry on the part of crop insurance loss adjusters. In addition, producer stakeholders 

felt the adjusters wanted to limit the indemnity no matter the value lost. An insurance industry 

stakeholder commented they believe the Standard Reinsurance Agreement works against the 

insurance company. Producer stakeholders thought the 72 hour claim window was too short, due 

to the fact that damage from some perils (particularly insects like cicadas [sic]) takes longer than 

72 hours to be evident. Insurance industry stakeholders stated industry wide-cuts in the Errors 

and Omissions (E&O) insurance put them at extreme risk if they assisted a producer in entering 

PIVR data. This situation has implications concerning personal liability and/or higher A&O 

insurance premiums that make agents less eager to provide substantial assistance to their nursery 

crop insurance clients. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

During the Annapolis, Maryland listening session, five stakeholder-introduced nursery insurance 

concepts were introduced. First, a producer stakeholder suggested a revenue-based insurance 

plan that would require a 5 percent deductible and if a loss occurred, the insurance could cover a 

portion of the next 10 to 15 percent of the lost crop. Under this model, the producer would selfinsure for losses larger than 10 to15 percent (implying that the perceived probability of losses 

greater than 15 percent is very small). Second, a producer suggested premiums should be 

established based on the experience of individual nurseries. In other words, rather than countywide premium structures, the premiums should incorporate a loss-experience element as do 

premiums for automobile insurance. A third suggestion was for an insurance structure based on 

stated value or anticipated revenue, with a percentage of the loss covered by a deductible and all 

excess losses covered by the insured. The stakeholders believed a $50,000 deductible on $1 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

17

million (i.e., a 5 percent deductible) would work well for most growers. One producer suggested 

the most useful insurance would be similar to the current Actual Revenue History (ARH) 

products available for some crops. Such a product might target a subset of the nursery industry 

or might be structured to address subsets of a producer’s production by type and practice. The 

final suggestion was for a set of regional insurance products reflecting the regional character of 

nursery production. 

North Carolina 

The telephonic listening session in North Carolina was conducted with the support of the North 

Carolina Nursery and Landscape Association. The association distributed an announcement of 

the session. The Contractor also informed the Regional Office (RO) once a schedule had been 

established. North Carolina State University nursery extension offices were notified of the 

upcoming listening session and were asked to inform producers. Five producers, one 

representative of the North Carolina Nursery and Landscape Association, and one extension 

agent participated in the conference call. 

The North Carolina producer stakeholders thought the buy-up insurance for the Nursery Program 

was too expensive. The risk in that area is perceived to be lower than the risk implicit in the 

premiums for buy-up insurance. The producers indicated the administrative burden for the 

Nursery Program is incredibly time consuming and that the DataScape inventory process is 

redundant (i.e., the nurseries each keep a different inventory for their business management) and 

consequently a drain on the producer’s time. Producers indicated adjusters addressing losses in 

the nursery industry are not knowledgeable about the industry and require additional training, 

particularly about production practices and the structure of individual nursery operations. 

Producers believe the adjusters to have too much discretion in requiring rehabilitation of a tree. 

The producer stakeholders stated that sometimes a correct management decision is to destroy a 

tree rather than rehabilitating it. The producers noted that each nursery is unique and an 

insurance approach that treats the industry as a homogenous group will not be successful. An 

illustration of this point is that one producer’s final product is another producer’s “liner.”16 The 

producers called attention to need for insurance approaches that distinguish between multi-year 

crops and crops that are ready for market in less than one year. They suggested trees receiving 

inputs for more than a year need to be priced to reflect the costs of those inputs. The impact on 

the insurance of diversity in a nursery’s production was discussed. The pooling of value under a 

practice (presumably for CAT policies) was perceived by producers as a problem with the design 

of the insurance. Producers indicated that the SCD does not accurately represent the industry 

calendar in the South Atlantic production area. Stakeholders would prefer a SCD that more 

accurately represents the timing of the production cycle for the nursery industry in North 

Carolina. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

During the North Carolina listening session, three stakeholder-introduced concepts were offered. 

First, the stakeholders suggested the more susceptible nursery species should be insured 

differently (i.e., they should have higher rates, an independent unit with its own deductible) than 

less risky nursery species. Second, the producers would like to have an insurance product that 

 

16 In this case the term ‘liner’ was being used to indicate a plant that is placed into the field in a row or line. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

18

focuses on a single weather peril, perhaps in a single perilous window. Finally, the producers 

indicated they would prefer a greater variety of nursery crop types, preferably down to the genus 

level. 

Homestead, Florida 

The Contractor worked with the Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association to 

schedule the time and location of the Florida listening sessions. An announcement of the 

sessions was distributed to association members. The Contractor then informed the Southern 

Nursery Association of the Florida listening session schedule. An announcement of the sessions 

was posted on the association website. The Contractor informed the Valdosta RO of the date and 

time of the listening session. The Contractor also contacted AIPs selling insurance for nursery 

crops in Florida and was told the listening session announcement would be distributed to agents, 

who in turn would be encouraged to pass the schedule information on to insured and uninsured 

producers. Forty-seven people attended the Homestead listening session including 25 producers, 

20 insurance industry stakeholders, 1 extension agent, and a nursery expert from the Valdosta 

RO. Following the listening session, the Contractor and several insurance industry stakeholders 

visited an operation that had recently had a nursery insurance claim. There were a number of 

other nurseries producing a variety of different nursery types in the area the Contractor visited. 

Producers stated the SCD does not align with the nursery business practices calendar for the 

Homestead region. Producers indicated a better SCD would be around first of June or the first of 

July. Both insurance industry and producer stakeholders indicated the crop insurance program is 

extremely time consuming and onerous. Producers said a plant inventory crop insurance 

program does not address the nature of the nursery industry because their plant inventory 

changes every day. One producer noted an operation can pot as much as $3 million of new 

inventory in a 30 day period. This creates challenges in trying to maintain an accurate and 

precise inventory. 

Producers suggested one major problem with this program is the CAT coverage. They continued 

by giving an example relating to an over-report situation which resulted in an indemnity much 

smaller than the producer expected. A stakeholder suggested CAT coverage could be 

terminated. The producer and insurance industry stakeholders commented that after a loss 

occurred they struggled with the loss adjuster to determine whether the producer should 

rehabilitate specific trees and what the residual tree values were. The Florida producers 

indicated they preferred to have crop insurance for the entire crop. Stakeholders stated the ten 

percent over-reporting factor was too strict and they found it difficult to meet this target. Due to 

constant changes in the inventories (including adding new species and varieties as well as new 

size categories) the producers believe it is almost impossible to document their inventory at the 

ten percent level. The producer stakeholders indicated they felt too much of their time is 

dedicated to book-keeping for crop insurance, but then suggested more than two PIVR 

adjustments each year would better reflect the changing nature of their inventories. One 

producer commented that a shorter waiting period for the attachment of the insurance would be 

preferable. Both insurance industry and producer stakeholders stated DataScape is a useful 

approach to inventory management, but if DataScape is necessary it should at least be 

compatible (i.e., it should communicate and enable file transfer) with other software programs. 

Since the definitive age of the plant is sometimes unknown, the producer stakeholders indicated 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

19

they would like a different unit classification besides the age of the plant. One producer spoke at 

length about the difficulty of knowing the age of a plant. He suggested size, but not age, should 

be used in establishing the value of a particular plant 

Producers discussed the relative risks of operations run by more and less experienced nursery 

producers. A suggestion was made that experience be factored in to the rating structure. The 

producer stakeholders indicated crop insurance is a vital risk management practice and nursery 

industry as currently structured is not viable without crop insurance. A number of comments 

reflected a misunderstanding of the Nursery Grower’s Price Endorsement. Producers stated they 

would prefer to have price differences for size, variety, form (shape of the containerized plant), 

and the number of plants in a container. Producer and insurance industry stakeholders called for 

the formation of a focus group to further address changes to the Nursery Program. In addition, 

the stakeholders claimed increased compliance inspections would help limit insurance fraud. 

Overhead irrigation as a cold mitigation strategy was identified as a problem when required for 

large containerized trees. There are mechanical issues with setting up and maintaining such a 

system. One stakeholder indicated palm trees are not currently priced correctly. The suggestion 

was that palms should be priced based on species/variety and age. In addition, it was indicated 

overhead irrigation can be a burden to the very large container producers (200 gallon containers). 

Rebating of commissions from insurance agents to producers was identified as problem.17 The 

Contractor discovered there currently is no law against commission sharing between an agent 

and producer in Florida. Yet, such commission sharing can alter incentives to encourage risk 

tolerant producers to buy CAT insurance as a way to garner a share of the commission. 

It is important to note, Florida statutes may be in conflict with language regarding rebates in the 

Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) and the Act. The SRA defines rebate as 

““Rebate” means to pay, allow, or give, or offer to pay, allow or give, directly or 

indirectly, either as an inducement to procure insurance or after insurance has been 

procured, any benefit (including money, goods or services for which payment is usually 

made [except any service provided to fulfill an obligation of the Company under this 

Agreement]), discount, abatement, credit, or reduction of the premium named in the 

insurance policy and any other valuable consideration or inducement not specified in the 

policy.” 

Section II(a)(5) of the Act states: “A Company and its affiliates are prohibited from providing a 

rebate except as authorized in section 508(a)(9)(B) of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 1508(a)(9)(B)).” The 

section of the Act detailing the exception reads: 

PREMIUM ADJUSTMENTS.— 

(A) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no person shall 

pay, allow, or give, or offer to pay, allow, or give, directly or indirectly, either 

as an inducement to procure insurance or after insurance has been procured, 

any rebate, discount, abatement, credit, or reduction of the premium named in 

an insurance policy or any other valuable consideration or inducement not 

specified in the policy. 

 

17 The Contractor verified rebating commissions is allowed under Florida law under certain circumstances. See Florida Statutes - 

Title XXXVII Insurance Section 626.572 (http://law.onecle.com/florida/insurance/626.572.html). It appears if rebates are 

offered, the only restriction is that the rebates be offered uniformly and without prejudice. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

20

(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to— 

(i) a payment authorized under subsection (b)(5)(B); 

(ii) a performance-based discount authorized under subsection (d)(3); or 

(iii) a patronage dividend, or similar payment, that is paid— 

(I) by an entity that was approved by the Corporation to make such 

payments for the 2005, 2006, or 2007 reinsurance year, in accordance 

with subsection (b)(5)(B) as in effect on the day before the date of 

enactment of this paragraph; and 

(II) in a manner consistent with the payment plan approved in accordance 

with that subsection for the entity by the Corporation for the 

applicable reinsurance year. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

The stakeholders at the Homestead, Florida listening session introduced three concepts. 

Stakeholders indicated nursery crop insurance based on producer-identified value (i.e., not 

necessarily prices) would be preferred. An insurance industry stakeholder suggested a crop 

insurance approach requiring the producer to report the inventory at the beginning of the month 

and the end of the month, with 12 insurance periods would better capture the assets at risk. This 

product could use either a total-assets dollar amount or actual assets inventory. This would 

capture the benefits of the PIE and could be offered as a rolling inventory endorsement. The 

third stakeholder suggestion was an insurance approach based on the square footage of the 

nursery under production, and a gross estimate of value per acre, in lieu of the current asset 

inventory. 

Apopka, Florida 

The Contractor worked with the Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association to 

schedule the time and location of the Florida listening sessions. An announcement of the 

sessions was distributed to association members. The Contractor then informed the Southern 

Nursery Association of the Florida listening session schedule. An announcement of the sessions 

was posted on the association website. The Contractor informed the COTR and Valdosta RO of 

the date and time of the listening session. The Contractor also contacted AIPs selling insurance 

for nursery crops in Florida and were told the listening session announcement would be 

distributed to agents, who in turn would be encouraged to pass the schedule information on to 

insures and uninsured producers. This listening session was attended by 24 stakeholders 

including 5 producers, 16 insurance industry stakeholders, 1 nursery association representative, 1

extension agent, and a nursery crop expert from the Valdosta RO. 

Producers indicated they would like the insurance to be simplified. An insurance industry 

stakeholder indicated the program would be improved if it more accurately reflected the pricing 

of ‘premium” varieties, and would prefer the use of reported price, not the lesser of the EPL PPS 

and grower catalog prices. Producers indicated they would like to be allowed to make a 

downward PIVR inventory adjustment, and would like to be able to make more adjustments 

throughout the year. Currently multiple-stemmed trees are priced the same as a single-stem tree; 

producers would like to see an alternate pricing system for multiple-stem trees since these trees 

command a premium (this is a variation on the “pricing by form” comment made in Homestead). 

Overhead irrigation as a cold mitigation strategy was identified as an issue when required for 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

21

large containerized trees. The producer stakeholders stated field-grown trees are not maintained 

with overhead irrigation as it wastes water and energy. Insurance practices for frost protection 

for containerized trees requires tipping the trees; this practice was identified by a producer as 

impractical due to the large size (200 gallons and larger) of some of the container trees. Some 

producers have an issue with the exclusion of stock plants from the insurance; the stock plants 

are essential to the production of their crop. An insurance industry stakeholder indicated if the 

over- and under-reporting tolerance was 20 percent, growers could establish their inventory well 

within that range. One producer felt the premium rate differentials between 60 and 75 percent 

coverage levels was unreasonable, the Contractor indicated the evaluation considers and 

addresses rates. The stakeholders indicated a problem with required recordkeeping: when a loss 

occurs, sales receipts are used to establish the price of a plant. Rules regarding receipts require 

complete information on each receipt. That was not the manner receipts were maintained on the 

operation in question. Producers indicated the crop insurance frost protection requirements for 

foliage plants don’t reflect common nursery practices in the area. Insurance industry 

stakeholders stated their problems with DataScape: some plants are not listed in the correct 

zones while others are not on the DataScape list at all. A desire for DataScape to communicate 

with existing common software programs was a recurring theme. The stakeholders mentioned 

the over-reporting factor is a problem because inventories are always changing. Stakeholders 

also suggested eliminating CAT coverage because the insured does not really make a 

commitment (in the financial sense) under CAT coverage. One stakeholder suggested the 

government increase the punishment for insurance fraud (i.e., put convicted abusers of crop 

insurance in jail). Again rebates of commissions from insurance agent to producers were 

identified as an issue that particularly affects nursery insurance. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

The Apopka listening session had the largest number of stakeholder introduced concepts. 

Stakeholders suggested a move away from an inventory requirement at sign-up. The proposed 

program would require the producers to state a liability value at sign-up. At the time of a loss, 

remaining inventory and sales receipts would be used to establish the functional size of the 

liability. For example: if the producer wants one million dollars in coverage, they would pay for 

that level of coverage. However, after a loss, if they have $750,000 worth of trees on the 

nursery, they would need to document at least $250,000 in sales or the liability used for loss 

adjustment would be reduced. Second, stakeholders suggested an insurance plan that does not 

require every plant on the nursery to be insured. An insurance industry stakeholder suggested a 

replacement requirement similar to the current requirement for Florida Fruit Trees, with larger 

indemnities paid if the nursery plants are actually replaced. This insurance approach was 

proposed to operate as an endorsement to a revenue product. The program would use average 

revenue over the past seven years as a basis for the insured revenue guarantee. The replacement 

costs for the trees and the lost revenue for the year would be combined to establish the

indemnity. Stakeholders suggested a premium discount for buy-up coverage for producers who 

had no claims. This program could be modeled similar to safe-driver discounts in auto insurance 

(which has been discussed for Federal Crop Insurance Programs before, but never implemented). 

An alternate discount approach could be structured around infrastructure. For example, if 

infrastructure to protect against flooding is incorporated into the operation, the premium could be 

discounted by the premium amount associated with flood, effectively like a “high risk land” 

designation, only in reverse. One producer suggested an AGR-type program for nursery. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

22

McMinnville, Tennessee 

The Tennessee listening session was scheduled with the cooperation of the Tennessee Nursery 

and Landscape Association (TNLA). The announcement of the session was distributed to TNLA 

members. The Contractor then informed the Southern Nursery Association of the Tennessee 

listening session schedule. An announcement of the sessions was posted on the association 

website. The session was held at the University of Tennessee extension offices. Extension 

personnel were notified of the upcoming listening session and shared that information with 

producers. The Contractor informed the COTR and the Jackson, Mississippi RO. This listening 

session was attended by 27 people: 19 producers, 2 representatives of the TNLA, 2 extension 

agents, 3 state and federal governmental stakeholders, and 1 insurance industry stakeholder. 

Following the listening session, the Contractor, an extension agent, and an RMA Kansas City 

stakeholder toured a nursery which produced both field-grown and containerized plants. 

Inasmuch as a number of participating producers experienced substantial unindemnified losses in 

2007 (from an unseasonable freeze) and had recently had devastating damage from cicadas, the 

discussions were spirited. The stakeholders had a consensus that the period of insurance 

(generally June 1 to May 31) does not reflect the industry’s production cycle and creates 

problems with both scheduling and coverage. Producers suggested coverage from November 1 

to October 31 would better reflect their business activities. The producer stakeholders indicated 

competent adjusters would be beneficial to the nursery industry, and suggested having a retired 

nursery person or extension agent travel with the loss adjusters to help determine the extent of 

the damage and which tree is worth rehabilitation or not. Producers find it hard to file a claim 

within 72 hours after an insurable event occurs. For some events, like unseasonable freezes or 

warm spells, the damage will not become apparent until approximately four months after the loss 

event; the latency of cicada damage can be even longer. There is usually a lot of money invested 

into the seed of the tree/plant, and the producer stakeholders stated the seed is a valuable entity 

of the nursery business. They would like to be able to insure planted seed and young seedlings. 

In Tennessee, rootstock trees are grown from seed or cuttings to an insurable size and 

subsequently trimmed to an uninsurable size. The current limitations of insurability to plants 

greater than 12 inches are a problem for grafted plants. The producer stakeholders stated they 

would like to be able to insure different species at different coverage levels and populations of 

the same species at different ages at different coverage levels. The producers pointed out that 

after peril had occurred, the loss adjusters thought there was more value in the damaged trees 

than the costs to rehabilitate the trees. That proved not to be the case after some plants had been 

in rehabilitation for three years. The producer stakeholders also mentioned they would like to be 

able to insure the crop after it is out of the ground. Finally, producers said they would prefer to 

be able to divide the insure units to insure each farm separately. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

The producer stakeholders recommended when a loss occurs, an extension agent travel with the 

loss adjusters to help adjusters understand which trees are worth rehabilitating and which should 

be declared destroyed. 

San Marcos, California

The Contractor located the session in San Diego County because of the large amount of liability 

there. The specific location was suggested by the San Diego County Flower and Plant 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

23

Association. The listening session announcement was distributed to the following growers 

associations: San Diego County Flower and Plant Association, California Association of 

Nurseries and Garden Centers, and the Nursery Growers Association of California. In addition, 

a follow up email was sent to the associations requesting notice of the listening session be sent to 

their members. AIPs were asked to provide notice of the meeting to their agents, with particular 

focus on agents selling to nursery operations. The Contractor informed the COTR and the Davis 

RO of the session. The Contractor contacted the University of California-Davis extension 

personnel based in San Diego concerning the upcoming listening session. RMA supplied the 

Contractor a list of key attendees; the Contractor notified each these contacts individually of the 

listening session by a telephone call and/or an email. The Contractor contacted San Diego 

County Farm Bureau and requested information concerning the session be distributed to 

interested parties. The Contractor received two follow-up phone calls after the scheduled 

listening session, which provide the basis for the comments from this session. 

The follow-up callers, representatives of the insurance industry, spoke of the difficulty selling 

Nursery program insurance in California, the challenges of using the DataScape system, and the 

substantial costs to the insurance agencies associated with this program. The agents expressed 

their belief that the Nursery Crop Insurance approach does not address current nursery risk 

management needs in southern California inasmuch as the producers’ inventories are constantly 

changing (new species, new sizes, new varieties, etc.). 

Davis, California

The Contractor located the session in Davis because of the presence of the university, the RO, 

and substantial production of grape, fruit tree, and nut tree nursery plants. The Contractor 

contacted the University of California-Davis extension office concerning the upcoming listening 

session. The extension office suggested the session be located in a room adjacent to the annual 

Foundation Plant Services nursery meeting and held just prior to that meeting. The listening 

session announcement was distributed to the California Association of Nurseries and Garden 

Centers and the Nursery Growers Association of California. In addition, a follow up email was 

sent to the associations requesting notice of the listening session be sent to their members. AIPs 

were asked to provide notice of the meeting to their agents, with particular focus on agents 

selling to nursery operations. The Contractor informed the COTR and the Davis RO of the 

session. RMA supplied the Contractor a list of key attendees; the Contractor notified each these 

contacts of the listening session by a telephone call and/or an email. The Contractor contacted 

Farm Bureau and requested information concerning the session be distributed to interested 

parties. Although this meeting was scheduled on the same day and in the same location as a 

Foundation Plant Services meeting (with 70 producers and academic researchers attending) and 

substantial recruiting efforts were made both before the session and during the course of the 

session, no producers indicated interest in discussing the Nursery Program. After encouraging 

one of the producers who was attending the Foundation Plant Services pre-meeting to come into 

the listening session meeting room, the producer said, “I didn’t even know there was crop 

insurance for nursery.” Like the others, he declined our face-to-face invitation to attend. Three 

stakeholders from the Davis RO and one insurance industry representative did attend the 

listening session in Davis. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

24

Those attending the listening session stated the SCD date did coincide with a logical date in the 

nursery crop industry calendar for the region. The RO in Davis indicated it encouraged 

producers to sign up for the crop insurance beginning coverage (by submission of the required 

documentation) in October, which then captures the most risky period for nursery crops in the 

area. In other words, they suggested required documentation not be submitted until September. 

Finally, producers and agents suggested contract pricing be made available for plants produced. 

This approach to modifying the length of the insurance period is creative. It does not appear to 

exceed the limits imposed by the provisions of the nursery crop policy. Establishing this as a 

recommended approach is an administrative decision. However, the Contractor notes such an 

approach would address some of the nearly universal concerns producers expressed in disparate 

regions about the SCD; it may be appropriate to codify the practice in the Insurance Standards. 

An area of concern in the region is the range of nursery crops the producers would like to insure; 

the producers would prefer to insure specific varieties that are more risky rather than being 

required to insure all varieties in a type at the same level. In effect they are asking either for 

separate policies for differing crops (at a finer division than the current types) or a coverage 

approach similar to that available for producers of some major crops under optional units. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

The RO stakeholders suggested with a revenue type of insurance program two problems may 

occur. First, they believe over-reporting of historical revenue would be common and 

consequently more subsidies would be paid by the government than should be the case. Second, 

with wildfires destroying entire nurseries in California (i.e., they are burned to the ground), 

records to document lost inventory are often destroyed along with the inventory. Insurance that 

accounts for this missing documentation (or assures that all necessary documentation is in the 

hands of the insurance company) would better serve the region. An annual pre-attachment 

inspection could assuage some of these concerns, but would further increase the administrative 

and overhead costs associated with the program. 

Wilsonville, Oregon

Planning for the Oregon listening session was facilitated by discussions with the Oregon 

Association of Nurseries. The listening session was held in the association conference room. 

The Washington State Nursery and was also informed of the Oregon listening sessions. The 

Contractor informed the Spokane RO about the listening session, and the RO volunteered to 

inform AIPs, producers, and other contacts about the listening session. Oregon State University 

extension personnel were notified about the upcoming listening session. The Contractor 

informed the AIPs and insurance agent contacts and requested the announcement of the session 

be dispersed. The Capital Press, a well-distributed agriculture publication, was provided with a 

press release for distribution in the paper. The Oregon listening session was attended by nine 

people: three producers, four insurance industry stakeholders, one employee of the nursery 

association, and the nursery expert from the Spokane RO. The family of one of the insurance 

industry representatives also maintained and managed a nursery. 

The producers indicated their inventories change daily, which limits their ability to accurately 

report on inventory. Producers indicated a better definition of what qualifies as a loss would be 

appreciated, as damaged plants seem to be considered saleable by the insurance industry even 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

25

when they can not be rehabilitated. The stakeholders indicated following 2008 losses from a 

cold to hot to cold temperature cycle, Emergency Disaster payments were received earlier than 

the crop insurance indemnities. This timing of payments was a frustration because they expected 

the crop insurance indemnities would be paid out faster than a disaster program payment. A 

producer stakeholder whose nursery produced plants that were 3 to 8 years old stated their 

inventories change daily; in order to maintain and manage the insurance program inventory they 

need a full-time employee. To illustrate the complexity of measuring a nursery inventory, one 

producer recounted how change in size require “potting-up.” This changes the FMV of the plant 

and may not reflect the inventory projections that were used to establish the PIVR. The 

producers suggested they know the extent of the damage to their crops within four months of a 

loss occurrence. Producers stated that February, March, and April are the peak shipping periods 

from Oregon nurseries. The current sales closing date consequently requires an inventory and 

inspection at an ebb in the total inventory level. Producers indicated a September 1 SCD would 

be more appropriate. The insurance industry and producer stakeholders indicated problems with 

DataScape. The insurance industry stakeholders indicated agents usually enter the information 

into DataScape, and they indicated this process is tedious. They would like DataScape to 

communicate with other software programs, even programs as simple as MS Excel, since most 

inventory programs can generate comma separated value (CSV) files that can be edited in MS 

Excel. The stakeholders also indicated DataScape doesn’t include certain types of plants that are 

commonly grown in the Pacific Northwest. Furthermore, a producer suggested the lumber 

markets are closely tied to the nursery industry due to the link of both to house construction. It 

was a general consensus among the stakeholders that the nursery crop insurance program should 

be adapted to better reflect characteristics of the nursery industry. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

Four insurance concepts were introduced by stakeholders during the Wilsonville listening 

session. First, the stakeholders suggesting treating nursery insurance similar to a building 

insurance with a value assigned by declaration and a co-insurance as well as a (smaller) 

deductible. Again the stakeholders acknowledged the danger producers would over-insure, but 

stated the underwriting standards could address this issue using producer documented purchases 

and sales. An insurance industry stakeholder suggested to model insurance similar to Livestock 

Gross Margin, in which the insured chooses a value to insure (and consequently a deductible). 

As the level of deductible increases, the premium subsidy increases. However, this approach 

would not get away from the requirement for substantial and detailed inventories. There was a 

suggestion that separate policies be developed for different regions to improve the specificity and 

applicability of the program, or a single base policy and with a variety of regional endorsements. 

Finally, the stakeholders discussed an adjusted gross revenue policy specifically designed for 

nursery. 

Richland, Washington

The Richland, Washington listening session was added at very limited cost to the government in 

response to a suggestion from one of the AIPs. The Oregon Association of Nurseries and the 

Washington State Nursery and Landscape Association were informed of both the session. The 

Contractor informed the COTR and the Spokane RO of the listening session location and timing. 

Washington State University extension personnel were notified about the upcoming listening 

session. The Contractor informed AIPs and requested the announcement to be transmitted to 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

26

agents. The Capital Press was provided a press release for distribution in the paper. The 

Richland listening session was attended by three people: a producer, an insurance agent 

(formerly a producer) who sells and services numerous nursery policies, and a nursery expert 

from the Spokane RO. 

The producer and agent, both of whom are heavily involved with grafted nursery production, 

indicated they would prefer a unit structure defined by age category since risks are different for 

nursery plants of different ages. The agent indicated DataScape is a daunting program, requires 

too much time, and is complicated without benefit of the providing much additional utility. The 

agent would like to see DataScape streamlined. Issues were raised concerning the need to cut 

trees to a size too small for insurance in order to fit into the planting machinery. The 

stakeholders would like to be able to insure both the rootstock and the grafted plants. The 

producer mentioned their nursery contracts with other companies, often to produce 

expensive/patented18 varieties not listed on the eligible plant list except generically. The 

stakeholders would prefer to have this contracted production insurable at an appropriate liability 

level. The stakeholders discussed Nursery Grower’s Price Endorsement as a possible vehicle for 

addressing the producer’s desire. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

The stakeholders at the Richland, Washington listening session introduced four insurance 

concepts. First, the agent suggested using an ARH program with the nursery industry. It 

appeared to the agent the nursery industry did not suffer from as many production losses as

revenue losses. The perishable ARH crops face similar issues as nursery crops. Quality is a big 

factor in the revenue stream. Second, the stakeholders suggested having regional unit structure 

definitions, perhaps in the special provisions. An example of this would be a special provisions 

statement saying, “...in the Pacific Northwest there are two different stages nursery production 

for commercial fruits crops and each can be insured as a basic unit, while in the Southeast a 

complete turn-over in the nursery inventory might be treated as a basic unit.” A third suggestion 

focused on allowing PIVR inventory adjustments down as well as up. Finally, the stakeholders 

and Contractor discussed contracted production (and contract prices) being treated as the 

equivalent to catalog prices. Since the plants may be owned by the person holding the patent 

rather than by the grower, there are alternatives that need to be explored within the existing crop 

insurance structure. 

Tyler, Texas

The Texas listening session was scheduled after consultation with the Texas Nursery and 

Landscape Association as well as the Northeast Texas Nursery Growers Association. The 

executive director of the Northeast Texas Nursery Growers Association suggested the Tyler 

location. Both associations informed members of the session. Texas A&M University extension 

personnel in the area were notified about the upcoming listening session and asked to 

communicate information about the session to interested stakeholders. The Contractor informed 

the COTR and the Oklahoma City RO about the listening session. The Contractor informed 

AIPs and requested the announcement be distributed to agencies serving the area, particularly to 

agencies with substantial involvement in Nursery Program sales. The Tyler listening session was 

 

18 The specific company limits the rights to grow these expensive crops. This company also markets the trees. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

27

attended by ten people: five producers, one insurance industry representative, two extension 

agents, and two RMA representatives from the Kansas City offices (including the Contracting 

Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) for this contract). Following the session the 

Contractor and the RMA representatives toured a large nursery with both field-grown and 

containerized production. 

The producer stakeholders indicated a problem with the 10 percent over-reporting factor 

currently in place, and stated the factor does not accurately represent the industry practices (i.e., 

their inventory ranges to about 20 percent over and under the mean). The producers indicated 

using DataScape is tedious and “the government is causing the nursery to do their inventory 

twice.” The producer stakeholders also indicated that within DataScape they had issues with 

certain plant types and prices that were excluded. DataScape was mentioned as both a time drain 

and a challenge to use by the producers and the insurance industry representative. In addition, 

the stakeholders indicated the DataScape prices do not accurately reflect the current wholesale 

market prices. A producer stakeholder suggested they would prefer single peril weather 

insurance rather than multiple peril crop insurance. The producer stakeholders raised the issue of 

misinformation provided to them by their crop insurance agents. The RMA staff and Contractor 

tried to understand the issue and provide direction about how a producer could obtain correct 

information from the RMA website. The producers and insurance agent indicated their 

preference for the insurance to not require rehabilitation of trees the nursery industry would 

consider non-salvageable. The producers indicated a desire to have insurance for harvested 

nursery production. 

Stakeholder Introduced Concepts 

Stakeholders introduced two insurance concepts in the Tyler listening session. The first was a 

suggestion that an under-reporting error be treated like under-insuring a home. Any loss under a 

policy where the PIVR understated the inventory would require a co-pay as well as a deductible 

with the co-pay equal to (the loss times one minus the deductible ) times (one minus the FMV A 

divided by the PIVR value).19

 The second was to develop separate policies to address groups of 

similar producers (i.e., similar location, similar crops, similar production and business cycles). 

Conclusions 

In spite of regional differences in the plants produced and management practices, stakeholders 

providing input to the Contractor consistently addressed several concerns with the current 

Nursery Program. First, the current program is perceived as complex, and because of this 

complexity the program is difficult for all stakeholders to understand. Second, the calendar of 

the insurance program does not seem to align with the nursery crop industry calendar in any 

region. The SCD was especially identified as coming at a difficult time for the industry. Since 

the sign-up process involves so much more paperwork than typical crop insurance sign-up, the 

misalignment of the insurance year and the business calendar were identified as a particular 

problem. 

CAT was identified as a problem by a number of producers and agents. While the issues with 

CAT varied, it was surprising to hear a number of stakeholders suggest doing away with that 

 

19 Loss * (1 – Deductible) * {1 – (FVMa

/ PIVR)}
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

28

coverage approach. Less surprising were the comments about the knowledge of the loss 

adjusters concerning the nursery industry. The complexity and diversity of the industry make it 

particularly challenging for an adjuster to have appropriate expertise in every production region. 

Finally, DataScape was identified as a major issue. The time required to maintain and enter a 

DataScape inventory was especially noted; stakeholders indicated, at a minimum, DataScape 

should be configured to communicate with other inventory software programs. In some sectors 

of the nursery industry, it is not a good assumption that the inventory from one year is a useful 

basis for drafting the inventory for the next year. Furthermore, the variability of inventory 

within a year is enormous. Consequently, from the perspective of the nursery operation, the 

inventory basis of the insurance does not seem reasonable. 

It is difficult to imagine a concern that is more fundamental to an insurance program than a lack 

of confidence in its basic conceptual basis. While RMA has backed away from dollar-programs 

and their ex post hoc loss adjustment process for most crops, elements of the same conceptual 

issues are manifest throughout the Nursery Program. Producers would clearly like to see the 

Nursery Program broken up into a number of regional and crop-type programs that address the 

specific needs of each. The Contractor believes this could be done under a broad common 

program framework, to facilitate reasonable administration, but given the scope and sheer 

number of new customized options, it is unlikely these alternatives could be rolled out for a large 

number of nursery growers expeditiously. The stakeholder input provides both a number of 

useful suggestions for band-aiding the current program and the fodder for many ideas for 

fundamental changes. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

29

SECTION IV. INDUSTRY RESEARCH ANALYSIS 

This section of the evaluation report addresses the requirement that 

“The fourth section of the report shall contain the findings of the industry 

research analysis. A primary focus of the discussion should be structural changes 

in the industry and their potential impact on the crop insurance program under 

review.”20

As noted previously, the nursery segment of the U.S. agricultural economy is extraordinarily 

complex. Activities in the segment include propagation and sale of commercial, ornamental (i.e., 

patio and houseplant), and landscape plants. Propagation can be as simple as planting seed and 

maintaining the resulting seedlings or as complex as the sterile harvest of a meristem,21 culturing 

the meristem in a laboratory, stimulating shoot development in culture, harvesting shoots from 

the cultured tissues, rooting the shoots, planting out the rooted shoots, and maintaining the plants 

until they are marketed. 

Nursery operations are performed to support wholesale and retail sales (i.e., some producers sell 

directly to retail markets including in storefronts, via the internet, from roadside stands, and 

through telephone sales). Many nursery operations are vertically integrated, including 

production agriculture, processing activities, marketing, landscaping, and transportation in their 

business activities. Others are highly specialized and are involved in production of a limited 

number of species in a limited number of sizes. This latter pattern is especially prevalent with 

operations producing tray “liners.” It is also true of operations selling primarily to retail 

businesses and operations selling grafted fruit trees to commercial fruit producers. 

Plants sold by producers in the nursery segment range in size from seedlings less than half an 

inch tall grown in liners to trees whose caliper and size allow the creation of instant landscapes. 

Some nursery crops are evergreen; others are deciduous. Nursery plants include monocots 

(grasses and palms) and dicots (broad-leafed plants); conifers, cycads, ferns, and flowering 

plants; and annuals, biennials, and perennials. Some nurseries produce a single species (though 

often more than one variety); others produce dozens of species and more than 100 varieties. 

The incredible variety of the nursery plants insurable under the Nursery Program is evident in the 

volume of the eight regional Eligible Plant Lists, which range in length from 64 to 1,084 pages 

(Table 1). In the solicitation for this contract, RMA indicated the 2010 EPL PPS listed 25,500 

plants.22 While many nurseries produce relatively small numbers of species, when varieties and 

sizes are also considered in their production diversity, even a one-acre operation might be 

characterized by hundreds of different inventory entries for the purposes of the Nursery Program. 

 

20 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 12. 

21 The growing tip of a stem or less often a root. 

22 Solicitation: Attachment – Operation of Current Nursery Crop Insurance Program, page 1. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

30

Table 1. Length of Nursery Program Eligible Plant Lists by Region 

States Pages

Alaska 64

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee 1,084

Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah 1,070

Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming

880

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

Virginia, and West Virginia

1,004

Hawaii. 1,070

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington 520

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas 1,076

Source: The Contractor’s Research Department. 

The 2007 Census of Agriculture reported almost $144 billion of crops (including nursery and 

greenhouse crops) sold in the United States that year.23 Of that amount, more than $16.6 billion 

was attributed to nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod production24 on 50,784 operations. 

The Nursery Program specifically excludes certain categories of production from the Census 

“Nursery, Greenhouse, Floriculture, and Sod” categories. Production of these excluded crops 

amounts to almost $4 billion (Table 2). 

Table 2. Operations Excluded from the Nursery Program and their Sales in 2007 

Crop Farms Sales Protected Open With Sales

Bulbs, corms, rhizomes, and tubers-dry 247 717 896 90,304,021

Cut flowers and cut florist greens 1,316 4,343 5,056 711,369,050

Flower seeds 191 320 491 35,995,358

Greenhouse fruits and berries 249 n/a 244 11,422,793

Greenhouse vegetables and herbs 4075 n/a 4056 553,034,688

Mushrooms and mushroom spawn >197 n/a >195 1,019,214,843

Sod n/a 1881 1,878 1,353,422,529

Vegetable seeds 361 805 1097 99,694,490

Total 3,874,457,772

Source: The Contractor’s Research Department after USDA, NASS, 2009, Census of Agriculture, Table 37, page 44. 

 

23 USDA, NASS, 2009, Census of Agriculture, Table 1, page 7. 

24 This figure does not include production values for short rotation woody crops and Christmas trees, which are included in some 

census reports of nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod crops. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

31

The Nursery Program also excludes operations that do not have at least 50 percent of their gross 

income from sales into wholesale nursery crop markets. Data on the wholesale/retail breakdown 

of nursery crop sales are not generally available in any form that would allow a precise 

assessment of the sales from nursery crop production eligible for insurance under the Nursery 

Program. However, assuming operations with sales primarily into retail markets account for 

approximately ten percent of the remaining sales volume, then the potentially insurable liability 

in Nursery Program operations would be approximately $11.4 billion; assuming operations with 

sales primarily into retail markets account for approximately half the remaining sales volume, the 

potentially insurable liability in Nursery Program operations would be approximately $6.3 

billion. The Contractor believes the insurable liability falls somewhere within this range. 

The 2009 Census of Horticultural Specialties (2009 Horticulture Census) was a follow-up to the 

2007 Census of Agriculture and surveyed all operations that reported horticultural crop sales of 

$10,000 or more on the 2007 Census. The Horticulture Census addresses crops including aquatic 

plants, bedding plants, Christmas trees, commercial vegetable transplants, cut cultivated florist 

greens, cut flowers, dry bulbs, flower seeds, greenhouse-produced vegetables, ground covers, 

potted flowering plants, propagation materials, short-rotation woody crops (e.g., pulpwood 

crops), shrubs, sod, trees, (including fruit and nut trees), unfinished or pre-finished plants, 

vegetable seeds, vines, and other nursery or greenhouse plants. For the purposes of crop 

insurance, nursery crops exclude plants grown to produce Christmas trees, cut flowers, cut 

greens, dry bulbs, fruits (as opposed to fruit plants), seeds, short-rotation woody crops, and 

vegetables (as opposed to vegetable plants), but include the horticultural categories in addition to 

the limited grouping the Horticulture Census categorizes as “nursery crops.” The additional 

horticultural categories include, at a minimum, annual bedding plants, potted herbaceous 

perennials, and potted flowering plants. 

In 2009, there were 3,623 producers with wholesale sales of annual bedding plants (including 

vegetable plants). Approximately half these operations sell exclusively into the wholesale 

markets. The wholesale sales of all annual bedding plants were almost $1.8 billion, with 89 

percent of sales in flowering plants for landscaping and the remainder from vegetables for home 

gardening.25

 Wholesale sales of bedding plants included approximately 66 million flats of 

landscape flowering plants26 and 8 million flats of vegetable plants.27 Wholesale sales of potted 

annual plants for planting out included approximately 500 million plants, 71 percent of which 

were in pots less than 5 inches in diameter.28 Consequently, most of the annual plants insurable 

under the nursery program are young and in relatively small containers. 

In 2009, there were 2,975 producers with wholesale sales of potted herbaceous perennials. Some 

of these producers also produce the bedding plants. The census data is not reported in a manner 

that allows separation of the producer population into individuals with single 

production/marketing strategies and those who pursue multiple strategies. The wholesale sales 

from these perennial plants were almost $700 million. More than 55 percent of the operations 

 

25 USDA, NASS, 2010, 2007 Census of Agriculture Census of Horticultural Specialties (AC-07-SS-3), Table 4. Annual 

Bedding/Garden Plants Sold – Total: 2009. 

26 Ibid., Table 5. Annual Bedding/Garden Plants Sold – Flats: 2009. 

27 Ibid., Table 5. Annual Bedding/Garden Plants Sold – Flats: 2009. 

28 Ibid., Table 6. Annual Bedding/Garden Plants Sold – Pots: 2009. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

32

producing wholesale potted herbaceous perennials sell exclusively in wholesale markets.29 More 

than a third of the potted herbaceous perennial plants produced are chrysanthemums, many of 

which are sold in very small pots (just a few inches in diameter). The majority30 of nonchrysanthemum perennial potted plants are sold in one gallon containers.31

In 2009, there were 2,190 operations producing potted flowering plants with wholesale sales of 

almost $780 million32 and 1,473 operations producing potted foliage plants with wholesale sales 

of almost $500 million.33 Data in the Horticulture Census suggests some of these operations 

specialize in production of a very limited number of species and a limited range of pot sizes, 

while others produce a wide range of species in a variety of pot sizes. There were also 975 

operations producing cuttings, plug seedlings, liners, tissue cultured plantlets, and prefinished 

plants for the wholesale markets. Of these, 905 sold only to wholesale customers, while 70 had 

both wholesale and retails sales.34

Regarding the production specifically addressed as Nursery Stock (i.e., woody trees and shrubs 

for landscape planting, ornamental grasses, and bareroot herbaceous perennials) in the 

Horticulture Census, there were 8,441 operations with production in excess of $3.85 billion.35 

This includes plants sold bareroot, balled and burlapped, or in containers. Since these three 

marketing practices are included in the Horticultural Census data for “Nursery Stock,”36 values 

for container grown and field grown plants are combined. Production of “Nursery Stock,” is 

reported in the Horticulture Census for every state. The total production is equal to 

approximately 125 percent of the liability insured under the Nursery Program in 2009. However, 

this comparison does not accurately reflect the level of participation in the Nursery Program 

since a portion of the wholesale production of annuals ($1.8 billion), containerized herbaceous 

perennials ($0.7 billion), potted foliage and flowering plants ($1.28 billion), and planting stock 

($1.54 billion of , plug seedlings, liners, tissue cultured plantlets, and prefinished plants) are also 

insurable under the Nursery Program. 

Plants grown on operations with less than 50 percent of their sales into wholesale markets as 

defined by the Nursery Crop Provisions are also not insurable under the Nursery Program. 

Consequently comparing populations and values between the Horticulture Census and the 

Nursery Program is challenging at best and impossible in the worst cases. Nonetheless, there is 

much useful information regarding the nursery industry (for the purposes of crop insurance) that 

can be gleaned from the Horticulture Census. 

Nursery crops are grown in containers and in the ground (field-grown production). Wholesale 

nursery crops are sold to big box stores, brokers, contractors, garden centers, landscapers, 

nurseries, and re-wholesalers. 

 

29Op. cit., Table 8. Annual Bedding/Garden Plants Sold – Total: 2009. 

30 53 percent with percentages ranging from 38 percent to 88 percent by plant grouping. 

31 Op. cit., Table 8. Potted Herbaceous Perennial Plants Sold: 2009. 

32 Ibid., Table 9. Potted Flowering Plants for Indoor or Patio Use Sold: 2009. 

33 Ibid., Table 10. Foliage Plants for Indoor or Patio Use Sold – Total: 2009. 

34 Ibid., Table 26. Cuttings, Plug Seedlings, Liners, Tissue Cultured Plantlets, and Prefinished Plants Sold: 2009 

35 Ibid, Table 18. Nursery Stock Sold; 2009. 

36 The Horticultural Census uses the term “stock” to mean production or plants. The same term is defined in the Nursery 

Program as plants from which buds, foliage, or flowers are derived. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

33

Field-grown Production 

Field-grown nursery production includes bare root and ball and burlap harvest practices. Bare 

root production involves harvest after the plant has entered dormancy, removal of the soil from 

the root mass, and often a management practice to limit desiccation of the root mass. Storage 

options for bare root stock includes cold storage, packing the roots in a moist medium (e.g., 

moss, paper etc.), and treatment with anti-desiccants (e.g., dips, gels, and clay). Dormant 

groundcovers, perennial grasses, and broadleaf perennials (e.g., deciduous shrubs and trees) can 

all be managed as bare root stock. Small conifers for Christmas tree planting and reforestation 

are also managed as bare root stock. The major advantage of bare root plants is their light 

weight and relatively low cost. 

Shrubs and trees that are dug with a portion of their root mass covered with soil are identified in 

the industry as balled-and-burlapped (B&B). B&B is a suitable harvest mechanism for 

evergreen and deciduous plants, conifers and flowering plants, and woody trees and palms. 

Large trees can be moved using this approach. One producer talked of moving trees with 15 ton 

root balls. Most B&B harvests are done while the plants are dormant. Hand harvesting requires 

trained staff, while mechanical harvesting requires specialized machinery. 

Drainage is essential for field-grown production. Soil types can vary from sandy soils (better for 

bare root production) to silty-clay loams (better for B&B production). Soils can be improved by 

the addition of organic matter. Soil pH for most nursery production should be from 6 to 6.5, 

although acid-loving plants (e.g., azaleas, cane berries, rhododendrons, and most conifers) 

require pH between 5 and 6. Pulverized, granular, pelletized and hydrated lime; gypsum 

(calcium sulfate dihydrate), and acidifiers (aluminum sulfate and elemental sulfur) can be used to 

adjust the pH. Soils P, K, and micronutrient content can be tested and soil amendments can 

correct deficiencies. Pesticide residues can limit growth of nursery stock. 

For soil with a low organic content, incorporation of organic matter or production of a green 

manure crop is beneficial. Perennial weeds are controlled with fumigation or systemic 

herbicides. Prior to planting, the soil is worked. Catching irrigation and rain water and recycling 

excess water may require construction of a drainage system and holding ponds. Fertilizers 

containing phosphorus, potassium, and micronutrients (as required) are incorporated prior to 

planting. Once general bed preparation and drainage grading is complete, the soil may require 

sterilization. Most planting is done in the spring, with limited fall planting for some crops. If 

irrigation will use buried lines, these should be installed before the container beds are 

constructed. On some sites, cover crops help to control weeds and erosion. 

Nitrogen fertilizers are applied for all field production as a pre-plant treatment, banded or 

broadcast post-planting, or as part of the irrigation supply. Most fertilizers are applied two or 

more times a year. Soil and leaf nutrient analysis is essential. Application rates vary, but often 

range between 50 pounds and 200 pounds nitrogen per acre per year. 

Most field production requires at least some supplemental irrigation. Field irrigation systems 

include either portable overhead or drip irrigation systems. After planting, weeds are generally 

controlled with cultivation, herbicides, mulching, mowing, and/or weeding by hand. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

34

Other considerations in field production are likely to include acclimation of planting liners, 

harvesting procedures/equipment, holding procedures, pruning, pest control (insect, disease, and 

wildlife), shipping procedures, and staking 

Container Production 

Container nursery production includes growing nursery plants in liners, pots, or bags. Generally,

metal and clay pots that were used historically have been replaced by blow-molded or injectionmolded plastic containers in sizes up to several hundred gallons. Some production occurs in 

smaller fiber containers (pressed paper and/or peat). Except for production of annuals and 

chrysanthemums, the majority of container production occurs in 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 25 gallon 

containers. Substantial improvements have occurred in the manufacture of plastic containers, 

including incorporation of ridges, holes, and baffles to control root growth. A variety of 

containers are available, including soft-walled polymer bags with gusseted bottoms, low profile 

bottomless containers for production on plastic or woven ground cloth, double wall container 

systems (pot-in-pot and pot-in-tray (e.g., the 160 square foot Cellugro® Systems that can hold 

pots as large as seven gallons), and field-grown fabric bags made from porous synthetic fabrics. 

Site selection is less critical for container production. A container bed can be built on any soil 

type as long as drainage is possible because of natural slope or grading. Container production 

areas include the production beds, the irrigation/pond system, and the roads. Beds are often 

covered with impervious barriers such as black plastic or with clam shells, gravel, mulch, or 

woven nursery cloth. Regardless of the surface, bed drainage is an essential management 

practice. Permanently set irrigation allows less flexibility in bed layout than drip irrigation. 

Catching irrigation and rain water and recycling excess water may require construction of a 

drainage system and holding ponds. Some beds have incorporated drainage systems. 

Container-grown plants require more frequent fertilization than field-grown production. Very 

few nutrients are available from the production medium. Slow-release, granular, or liquid 

fertilizer generally supply nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium as well as micronutrients. The 

slow-release and granular fertilizers can be incorporated into the potting medium or the surface 

of the medium. Most granular fertilizers do not last an entire growing season and need to be 

reapplied. Slow-release fertilizers have largely replaced traditional granular fertilizers in nursery 

production. These products package nutrients in resin or polymer capsules. The capsule is 

engineered to control the release of nutrients with release times as long as a year. Liquid 

fertilizers are generally applied with the irrigation water. 

Irrigation is required for container production, with daily irrigation during the growing season in 

many locations. Container bed irrigation can be supplied overhead, by drip systems, or by 

subsurface or capillary systems. A relatively new approach for overhead involves application of 

smaller pulses of water. Pulsed irrigation uses less water and leaches less fertilizer, but requires 

a more sophisticated control system. In the United States, capillary systems are used primarily 

for greenhouse rather than open bed production. Overhead irrigation uses the greatest volume of 

water while capillary systems use the least. 

Due to the close plant spacing, weeds are more difficult to control in container production. Hand 

weeding, herbicides, and substrate weed barriers are common control approaches. Other 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

35

considerations in container production are likely to include acclimation of planting liners, cold 

protection, container type and size, holding procedures, planting medium, pruning, pest control 

(insect, disease, and wildlife), shipping procedures, sun shading, staking, and wind protection.

Production of Grafted Material 

Grafting is a horticultural practice wherein tissues from one plant are joined to those of another. 

Grafting is most commonly used in asexual propagation of commercially grown plants for 

horticultural and agricultural uses. For most grafts, one plant (the rootstock) is selected for the 

characteristics (e.g., rapid growth, disease resistance) of its roots. The other plant (the scion) is 

selected for its stems, leaves, flowers, or fruits. 

Most large-scale production of grafted material is accomplished with bud grafts. In bud grafting, 

a dormant side bud (also called an eye) from one plant is grafted onto the stem of a plant being 

used for the rootstock. For successful grafting to occur, the vascular cambium tissues of the 

rootstock and scion must be placed in contact. A graft union forms as the two cambia produce 

new vascular tissues.

Depending on locale, species, and available human resources, bud grafts are made relatively 

early in or near the end of the growing season. A dormant bud is inserted into a shallow cut 

through the bark of the rootstock plant. There are many styles of bud grafting depending on the 

cut of the bud and method used to fit the bud to the rootstock; shield budding (describing the 

shape of the bud cut) is the most commonly used method. The tissues of the rootstock and scion 

must be kept alive until the graft union has formed, usually after a few weeks. The bud is 

generally bound in place to facilitate the formation of the graft. The wound may be sealed using 

the binding tape or a chemical seal to limit drying. When the graft union has formed, the scion is 

encouraged to grow by pruning off the stem of the rootstock plant just above the grafted bud. 

Production of grafted material can be done in field or using containerized rootstock. Fieldgrown rootstocks are used for the largest scale production operations. The grafted plants are 

generally grown for a year (or less often for two) following the grafting. In these large-scale 

operations, most harvests from the fields are of bare root plants.

Other considerations for grafted production are likely to include maintaining the dormancy of the 

scion stock until the grafts are made and (because the graft union is weaker than a typical stem) 

harvesting and holding procedures. Otherwise, grafted production is the same as the container or 

field-grown production described previously. 

It is interesting to note the procedures used to produce grafted plants exclude some of these 

plants from coverage for their entire life and all the plants for some part of their life. The 

Nursery Crop Provisions specifically exclude stock plants “grown solely for harvest of buds” 

(08-073 (Rev. 10-06), section 8(i)). Therefore, the plants from which the scion is harvested, 

perhaps the most valuable asset in a nursery operation that propagates grafted plants, are not 

insurable. The rootstock is generally uninsurable in its earliest stages because of size limitation. 

Finally, when the grafted plants are pruned to stimulate growth of the scion, they once again fall 

outside the size categories that are insurable.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

36

Industry Changes 

Nursery production is an important sector of U.S. agricultural economy. Nursery crop 

production generally requires substantial inputs, particularly in the form of labor. There are 

some elements that have hardly changed in the industry in one hundred years. This is 

particularly true of activities like pruning and grafting that require a practiced eye and a steady 

hand. Another pattern that has seen little change is the constant search for new varieties. New 

varieties generally command a premium. Consequently, a Nursery Program that insures new 

varieties as generic plants (with the lowest EPL PPS prices) penalizes the producers who are at 

the forefront of the industry. 

Some nursery production activities are mechanized. The operative word in this statement is 

“some.” Inasmuch as there are innumerable ways a nursery business can be structured, there is 

no one correct way to mechanize a nursery operation. In the course of this evaluation, the 

Contractor saw machines for planting, potting, repotting, watering, fertilizing, protecting, 

harvesting, packing, loading, and shipping. Many of the devices used to mechanize nursery 

production were one-off and custom-made. Consequently, the costs of mechanization are high. 

Furthermore, mechanization with customized machines limits the ability to change crops from 

year to year. The Contractor saw only one operation where mechanization was maximized. On 

most operations, limited mechanization addresses a particular production issue the producer has 

identified. 

The Contractor visited both large (hundreds of acres) and small (half acre) nursery operations. 

As described previously, all the containerized operations had irrigation systems. Depending on 

the locale, appropriate protection was supplied. Except for field-grown operations, no producer 

indicated a commitment to species that had been produced historically. Decisions about 

“planting” are driven by the markets. 

The most marked change the Contractor noticed in the industry was the computerization of 

nursery production functions. At the minimum, this included maintaining inventories on 

spreadsheet software. Nursery software programs are generally available, although the level of 

use is difficult to assess from the sampling available through listening sessions. In the extreme, 

the computerization of a nursery operation included inventory control (via chips in the flats), 

control of lighting and shade cloth deployment, control of heat, soil moisture monitoring, and 

control of the chemical composition of the “fertigation” water. Regardless of the extent of the 

computerization, there is a tendency to move from long-term contractual relationships to “justin-time” ordering and delivery. The customer has more input into the particular species, 

varieties, and sizes being produced, resulting in a shift in the balance of some decisions from the 

producer to the customer. A consequence of this shift is that producers may be producing new 

species more often and are certainly producing new varieties more often than was the case ten 

years ago. The Contractor did not identify any industry changes that would in turn drive changes 

to the Nursery Program. However, the Contractor believes RMA should explore the possibility 

of insuring grafted production as an additional practice. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

37

SECTION V. PROGRAM EVALUATION TOOL FINDINGS 

This section of the evaluation report addresses the requirement that the 

“The fifth section of the report shall contain a thorough discussion of the findings 

from use of the Program Evaluation Tool. The Program Evaluation Tool is 

designed to address basic insurability questions, such as perceived risk, 

availability of alternative risk sharing mechanisms, etc. The tool should be 

completed for each region of production, based on information obtained from the 

listening sessions, RMA Regional Offices and Compliance Offices, analysis of the 

program, and other sources. A copy of the completed diagnostic form for each 

production/pilot region should be included in an appendix to the report.”37

 

The Contractor completed all questions applicable to the crop, region, and plan of insurance 

based on the information obtained from listening sessions and the Contractor’s research and 

evaluation activities. The Contractor gathered this information in accordance with the 

requirements imposed by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Copies of the completed Program 

Evaluation Diagnostic Questionnaire for each crop are provided to the Government in Appendix 

A. 

A review of the program evaluation tool (i.e., diagnostic questionnaire) shows that the most 

notable element of the nursery program is complexity. The crop is complex. The producer 

population is widely scattered and characterized by an extreme range of financial resources and 

sophistication. The risks to the crops are limited, but occasional major losses have a substantial 

effect on the potential survival of individual operations. The marketing structure is complex and 

no single economic benchmark is tied to the industries performance (although housing starts 

affect portions of the industry). This complexity is reflected in the structure and operation of the 

Nursery Program. Everyone who expressed an opinion, with the exception of one agent, would 

like to see the policy simplified. 

Background 

The Nursery Program is available to producers of eligible nursery crops in every state, provided 

the operation meets certain criteria. Currently plants produced under the field-grown and 

container practices are insurable. Production of various sizes, including annuals, biennials, 

herbaceous perennials, and woody species in a wide range of types is insurable, but certain 

minimum size limitations by plant species or variety are imposed. Furthermore, all the eligible 

nursery plants in a county grown by a producer under an insured practice must be insured. An 

eligible plant must be on the published Eligible Plant List, grown in an appropriate medium, and 

grown in a nursery whose gross income comes primarily (i.e., >50 percent) from the wholesale 

marketing of nursery plants. Certain practices such as planting different genera, species, 

subspecies, varieties, or cultivars in a single container; growing an eligible plant for sale as 

Christmas trees, for use as stock plants, or as a source of fruit, nuts, flowers, or foliage cannot be 

insured. Underwriting requires a nursery be inspected and approved prior to the initial coverage 

Annuals, biennials, and some perennials may be planted and/or harvested multiple times during a 

crop production year; others annuals, biennials, and perennials are planted and/or harvested just 

 

37 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 12. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

38

once a year. Each operation is unique. The capital stock may be held by a producer for just a 

few weeks or may be maintained for decades. 

The producers have developed niche markets for species, practice, and size. In general, 

container plants are maintained in close proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent 

fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is influenced by markets more than management 

practices. For container plants, soil mixes may be proprietary and the soil is sold with the 

production. Some perennial nursery plants are treated like annual plants, either: a) grown for a 

year and then marketed, or b) purchased as liners or container plants and repotted and grown for 

a year. 

Field-grown plants are grown in single or double rows, with or without irrigation. Growth is 

supported by frequent fertilization and pest management. Turnover in many cases is influenced 

as much by markets as by management practices. For B&B plants, the root ball and associated 

soil is dug, wrapped, and tied off. Eventually if plants cannot be sold they become too large for 

the market and are destroyed. 

For most species and varieties, in most locations, events resulting in losses of capital stock are 

uncommon. However, losses may not involve the loss of an entire plant, but instead loss of 

portions of the plants. Most such losses are to extreme weather. The effect of losses of portions 

of a plant is similar to the effect of losing whole plants in the short run (the producer has no 

production to sell); recovery is sometimes possible, depending on the nature of the damage. 

However, the costs of rehabilitation over time may exceed the costs of replacement. 

Consequently, following a loss, the manager of a nursery faces a dilemma about balancing the 

three values: rehabilitation costs, replacement costs, and salvage value (i.e., the value of a plant 

sold immediately at a deep discount if any such value remains). Furthermore, there are likely to 

be two competing options for replacement: purchase and onsite production of the replacement 

plant. Obviously the decisions about re-establishing an inventory are complex and involve 

elements of production agriculture, finance, and economics. Minimal times for recovery of a 

nursery operation that has suffered a major loss are likely to be close to a year. For operations 

with production measured in decades, recovery may be nearly impossible. 

In nearly every region of the country, nurseries grow plants from seed, from cuttings, and from 

liners. Meristem cloning is also used for some specialized production (patented varieties, 

orchids, bromeliads, etc.). Nurseries also buy larger plants produced by these three processes, so 

one nursery’s production becomes another nursery’s liner. Nurseries producing plants in 200 

gallon pots may use plants in 30 gallon pots as liners. Some of the liners used by nurseries are 

locally produced; some come from as far away as China. Markets determine the type and 

practice, however, most producers have garnered a particular market niche and work to 

maximize their share within the niche. 

Marketing 

The marketing channels for nursery production vary by operation and variety. Many producers 

in the region produce limited types maintained under one practice. Depending on the market, 

production may be sold to a single buyer or multiple buyers. Prices are generally established 

prior to harvest and in many cases prior to planting. Prices are influenced by markets, 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

39

relationships between the buyer and seller, varietal differences, quality judgments by the buyer, 

etc., more than by supply. The windows for sales of most of these nursery crops are very small. 

The costs of rehabilitation relative to the value of the crop generally preclude most rehabilitation. 

Some production is initiated under contract. 

Insurable Liability 

The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. There is no yield of 

nursery production. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory 

values (i.e., individual plant prices) are established at the onset of the insurance period. While 

this inventory and its value continually change (a major source of concern for a program with an 

inventory basis), producers have limited opportunities to update their inventory and the labor 

cost updating the DataScape inventory is high. The nursery production has no ‘quality’ in the 

sense a harvested crop has quality. Individual plants are either saleable or not saleable. 

Generally, off-grade production is not saleable. 

Non-Insurance Risk Management Strategies 

Producers use substantial non-insurance inputs to manage risks. These can include coldmitigation equipment such as fans, heaters, overhead irrigation, as well as structures such as 

greenhouses, temporary enclosures, roofs, etc. The most sophisticated operations use monitoring 

systems to manage every aspect of the environment (temperature, humidity, mineral content of 

irrigation supply, etc.). The least sophisticated operations use human resources to mitigate the 

effects of perilous conditions (tipping containerized plants, moving the plants into warehouses, 

providing supplemental irrigation). The range of operations even in a single county can be 

substantial. From discussions with producers, it appears the least wealthy and wealthiest 

producers are less risk-averse and prepared to deal with the consequences of a significant loss of 

stock. In the case of the least wealthy producers, coping or seeking alternative revenue sources 

was the most commonly identified strategy, while the wealthiest producers have the resources to 

self-insure as a straight-forward financial strategy. 

Other Available Insurance 

It is possible to insure some perennial crop stock against fire through private contract, although 

such insurance is neither a standard product nor generally marketed. Private freeze insurance is 

available in some regions. Private named peril insurance for trees is available 

(http://www.liveassetinsurance.com/index.htm) but not in Florida and may be restricted in other 

states with substantial hurricane risks. 

Producers 

Producers are a highly variable group, both in their financial sophistication and in their fiscal 

resources. Some producers are geographically diversified within the region. This pattern is less 

characteristic of the smallest producers. This pattern is truer for producers whose primary 

income is from nursery crops, and the very largest producers. 

The insurance is viewed favorably by lenders. The importance of agriculture in the regions 

where nursery crops are commonly produced, and the success of agricultural enterprises, have 

had a substantial effect on the general attitude of agricultural lenders. Of course, loan 

underwriting is enormously influenced by individual credit history as well as insurance-based 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

40

guarantees, and these credit histories are highly variable because of the diverse characteristics of 

the operations that produce nursery crops. 

Risks 

Weather is the major cause of loss under the Nursery Program, although some losses result from 

periodic outbreaks of insects that cannot be controlled. Producers with a greater variety of types 

and species within types are more likely to suffer losses from weather perils, but the effects of 

these losses on the financial condition of the operation are mitigated by the plant diversity. It is 

unusual to lose all the plants in a diversified operation. The only incidence of this described by 

stakeholders was a loss to wildfire wherein the operation was “burned to the ground.” 

Maintenance practices can influence the ability of the nursery crops to tolerate perils. 

Perils that concern growers of nursery crops that are not covered by existing RMA-facilitated 

insurance products include labor shortage and varietal changes. Producers also perceive 

improper requirement for rehabilitation and requirement to insure rehabilitating stock as 

substantial risks to their financial success. None of these are insurable perils, but the issues 

related to rehabilitation requirements can be addressed by better aligning the rehabilitation 

requirements with normal business practices in the industry. 

Moral Hazard 

Since the indemnities are triggered by weather events, the losses that result from poor 

management practices are generally obvious. However, a weak nursery plant is less likely to 

survive a weather peril. Consequently, these multi-factoral losses are more difficult to attribute 

to a single cause. Due to the complexity of the nursery program, it is possible to game the 

system. While substantial underwriting standards limit the effectiveness of these games, the 

complexity of the operations and of the Nursery Program itself work against total elimination of 

abuse of the program. The opportunity for information asymmetry in such a complex framework 

is simply too great. However, while egregious incidents of abuse and even of fraud have been 

reported, program-wide the abuse does not appear to be substantively different from that 

occurring under other crop insurance programs. 

Participation 

Participation has been declining both in terms of insured liability and of policies earning 

premium. Many producers have dropped the insurance after suffering an unindemnified loss. 

There is no question the complexity of the Nursery Program has led insureds to believe they had 

coverage they did not have. There is some anecdotal evidence that agents are suggesting 

potential coverage that exceeds actual coverage. There is also evidence the loss adjustment 

process has not been perceived as fair to the insureds. These two issues have contributed 

substantially to a reduced demand for the insurance. While the provisions have been changed 

several times to address some of these issues, the issues have not been resolved to the 

satisfaction of producers. This program could be made more attractive to producers, which 

should result in increased participation, especially at buy-up levels. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

41

SECTION VI. EVALUATION COMPONENT ANALYSIS 

This section of the evaluation report addresses the requirement that: 

“The sixth section of the report shall contain the findings of the Evaluation 

Components analysis. Themes developed while investigating these topics will be 

described as will the potential or probable impact upon the crop program’s 

performance. Data contained in this section must be highly summarized. 

Discussions shall focus on the meaning of the data and not upon describing the 

numbers. More detailed tables, maps and graphs will be included in an 

Appendix. All conflicts, ambiguities, inconsistencies, gaps, duplications, or other 

problems that exist within and among the documents should be thoroughly 

documented.”

38

This section further incorporates a review of a sample of policy files documenting the 

implementation of the various requirements.

VI.A. Insurance Components 

The components of the insurance addressed herein include the insurance dates, the crop 

provisions, three endorsements (the Peak Inventory Endorsement, the Rehabilitation 

Endorsement, and the Pilot Nursery Growers Price Endorsement), the Special Provisions of 

Insurance, the Nursery Crop Insurance Underwriting Guide, and the Nursery Loss Adjustment 

Standards Handbook. The nursery crop program is complex and seemingly convoluted. While 

the program appears to be well conceived and the components well articulated to address a 

complex industry, there are a number of contradictions and omissions within and among 

documents. If this program is continued, a substantial revision of the documents should be 

undertaken to provide greater clarity and eliminate conflicts. 

Insurance Dates 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Program Review Handbook, this section of the report 

provides a discussion of the applicability of the insurance dates for the Nursery Program. There 

are no “natural events” such as a determinable planting period for nursery as there are for most 

crops. Instead, the major risk periods provide a basis to define sales closing and other dates. 

There are three major risk periods: the winter months, when freezing temperatures can damage 

the plant tissue; the early spring and summer months, when windstorms and hail can have 

devastating impacts; and the hurricane season between June and November.39

 A sales closing 

date that occurs when these perils are at a minimum is appropriate to avoid adverse selection and 

administrative issues.40

In addition, the normal business cycle of nurseries should be considered in establishing a sales 

closing date. Some nurseries produce primarily indoor and tropical plants for exterior use in the 

southern United States. Others produce trees and shrubs for landscaping. Still other nurseries 

 

38 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 12. 

39 The official Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season runs from June 1 through November 30. The Atlantic Basin includes the 

Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Peak hurricane activity is from about mid-August to mid-October. However, tropical 

systems have been known to develop outside the official season (NOAA, undated, 

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/hgx/tropicalwp/OfficialHurricaneSeason.pdf, accessed November, 2011). 

40 The hurricane peril was cited by FCIC as the reason to change the crop year from October 1 through September 30 to the 

current June 1 through May 31. See 70 FR 37225. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

42

are heavily involved with producing bedding and garden vegetable plants. Nurseries listed in the 

first category are most likely year-round operations that produce plants of various years of 

growth. These nurseries will always have inventory on hand. Nurseries listed in the second 

category, but in areas with severe winter weather, are also most likely year-round operations that 

produce plants of various ages and sizes. However, the rhythm of their operations places the 

greatest demands on the producers in a window bracketing the current sales closing date. The 

nurseries producing bedding and vegetable plants have more seasonal production pattern with a 

peak of inventory in the late winter and significant shipments occurring in the early spring. 

Consequently, from region to region and among the various types of operations, the busiest time 

of year for staff is quite variable. Perhaps offering sales closing dates that vary by region, as is 

currently done in other national programs, would mitigate these issues. 

Sales Closing Date 

The sales closing date was a topic of discussion whenever more than one producer was 

commenting on the Nursery Program. There is a defined sales closing date of May 1 included in 

the Special Provisions. Insurance attaches on June 1 for applications or requests for change in 

coverage submitted on or before May 1. In general, few producers indicated there was a logical 

connection between their business cycle and the defined sales closing date. Most had a date they 

felt their business year began, a (potentially different) date when they could construct a 

reasonable PIVR, and a date their risks began. There was a consensus that any defined sales 

closing date was not the “correct” date, but no consensus of what an appropriate sales closing 

date might be. For one producer it was in January. For another it was in July. For yet another it 

was in late November or early December. Allowing policies to renew on the anniversary of the 

first application might be an alternative. This effectively allows each producer to customize the 

crop year to the specific needs of the operation. With regard to the need to define a crop year for 

statistical purposes, etc., the approach of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement could be 

considered. The crop year for those purposes would consist of all policies that begin or renew 

during a specific period. 

It should be noted, the Crop Provisions impose a mandatory minimum 30-day waiting period 

from the date of initial application or a request for change in insurance coverage before insurance 

attaches. This provision makes it impossible to predict a specific weather event that may be the 

source of damage to an insured crop, regardless of when the application is made. The Crop 

Provisions permit sales during an extended timeframe for the initial year of coverage or at any 

time a break in coverage occurs. 

This first sales closing date and the waiting period are reasonable considering the nature of the 

crop, the risk periods, and the business cycle. The required waiting period assures the purchase 

occurs before any forecasts of imminent freezing weather, hurricane, violent thunderstorms, or 

other weather event that may lead to damage. 

Acreage Report Date 

The acreage report date, May 1, is when the PIVR is due. For applications made after May 1, the 

PIVR is due on the date the application is submitted. From an insurance perspective, this date is 

reasonable, in part because the insured has the opportunity to submit up to two revised PIVR to 

increase liability during the insurance period (section 6(g) of the Crop Provisions). In addition, 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

43

the Crop Provisions have a further delay insurance attachment until 30 days after the receipt of 

the PIVR and associated paperwork. Hence, a delay by the insured in submitting the PIVR 

delays the date insurance attaches but does not extend the end of the insurance period. This 

provides an element of protection to the insurer relative to the liability actually insured and the 

period of insurance. However, a late submission of the PIVR may trigger a reduction in 

premium. 

Again, few producers indicated there was a logical connection between their business cycle and 

the date the PIVR was due. Most had a date they felt they could construct a reasonable PIVR. 

No one indicated that date was May 1. By that point either they were shipping inventory, had yet 

to decide what they would produce, or were fully engaged in production and could not take the 

time to produce a PIVR. For a small minority, the year was divided into three production cycles. 

For this group, a single PIVR due date was totally illogical since their production was based on 

contracts that were signed throughout the year. They didn’t know if their August-to-November 

crop would be roses or ornamental grasses until months after the PIVR was due. 

Insurance Period Dates 

The insurance period begins June 1 or 30 days after submission of the application or the required 

supporting documentation are submitted. The insurance period ends the following May 31. 

These dates are reasonable since protection is provided during the entire period that damage may 

occur once the insured has complied with the terms of insurance. However, considering the 

concerns producers had about the sales closing date and the acreage report date, producers who 

cannot meet those may have no insurance during risky periods 

Other Dates 

The initial and final planting dates do not apply for the Nursery Program. Acquisition of 

inventory can occur for much of the calendar year. 

The production reporting date does not apply. Section 3(a) of the Crop Provisions exempts 

nursery from the requirements to report production. This provision is required by the Basic 

Provisions whenever a production report is not applicable. 

The reinsurance date is defined by the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). The Nursery 

Program is included under the SRA that ends on the June 30 after the sales closing date. All 

sales that occur during the crop year (new insureds) also will be included under the same SRA 

since coverage under the SRA is defined by the published sales closing date. This is an 

administrative date for the purpose of aggregating liability under a particular SRA. It has no 

particular meaning for performance of the Nursery Program. There is no reason to deviate from 

the norm that has been established for defining the aggregation of liability under the SRA. 

The billing date, previously established as the March 1 following the first sales closing date for 

the 2011 crop year, is also an administrative date. Traditionally, crop insurance has established 

the billing date near the end of the insurance period. This date for the Nursery Program has been 

consistent with that practice. Section 508 (d) (4) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008, changed the billing date to August 15 beginning with the 2012 crop year. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

44

The contract change date is January 31. This also is an administrative date. The Basic 

Provisions (Section 4(c)) state the insured will be provided a copy of any changes to the 

insurance offer not later than 30 days prior to the cancellation date. By tradition, the contract 

change date has been established earlier than this minimum, typically three to four months prior 

to the sales closing date which normally also is the cancellation date. This provides the AIP with 

the opportunity to distribute the information as required by section 4(c). In the case of the 

Nursery Program, the contract change date is three months prior to the sales closing date and 

four months prior to the cancellation date. This is consistent with the normal practice for crop 

insurance. 

The cancellation/termination dates are May 31. This differs from most crops for which the sales 

closing and cancellation/termination dates are the same. As noted in the earlier discussion, the 

sales closing date for the Nursery Program precedes the cancellation/termination dates to provide 

a period of time that makes it impossible to predict potential damaging events between the date 

of application or renewal and the attachment of insurance. This does not create issues with 

respect to termination for debt because Section 2(f)(2) of the Basic Provisions explicitly 

addresses the matter of termination when the sales closing date precedes the termination date. 

Termination is effective as of the sales closing date. 

In summary, while all the dates in the Nursery Program are reasonable in relation to the nature of 

the crop and the risk period, it is notable that producers in every region indicated the sales 

closing date and the insurance period did not reflect the business cycle of nurseries. 

Crop Provisions 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Program Review Handbook, this section provides a sectionby-section review of the Crop Provisions. The content is discussed briefly with an assessment of 

potential vulnerabilities that may exist. Particular attention will be placed upon an assessment of 

whether the program provisions appropriately meet the needs of the nursery industry and the 

crop insurance system. RMA advised the Contractor that the thrust of the review was intended 

to identify alternatives to the current program design. Accordingly, the thrust of this assessment 

under the Program Review Handbook will focus on those aspects of the program that are likely 

to be a feature of any replacement program. The Contractor will identify those that are believed 

to need improvement whether the current program is continued in a slightly modified form or if a 

new program is devised. 

The Nursery Program differs materially from the norm for crop insurance programs. It is 

substantially more complex than most programs, and the Crop Provisions reflect this fact. There 

are other somewhat similar programs, such as Florida Fruit Trees, Texas Citrus Trees, and 

Hawaii Tropical Trees. Although all these programs are designed to establish the percentage of 

plant damage and to provide funds for replacement or rehabilitation of damaged plants, the 

Nursery Program is far more complex than the others mostly due to the sheer numbers of distinct 

plant types and values. In addition, the insured objects in those other programs are immobile. 

The program has even greater complexity since significant revisions have been made to the Crop 

Provisions by means of statements in the Special Provisions. These statements have changed 

definitions and added new features to the program such as an over-report factor, a term not 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

45

mentioned in the Crop Provisions. This review will flag those instances in which changes have 

been made to the Crop Provisions and evaluate the impacts. The Contractor notes that the order 

of control of program documents allows the Special Provisions to control the Crop Provisions. 

However, the primary purpose of the Special Provisions is to provide information specific to a 

county and not to serve as a vehicle to substantively modify the Crop Provisions without 

following the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The Contractor acknowledges 

extreme circumstances do require use of the “control” language on occasion. 

Briefly, the Nursery Program is based on a valuation per plant at specifically defined stages (age 

or size), type and size of container if container grown, and growth media (container or fieldgrown). In contrast to the tree programs, where the insured object is fixed in place, nursery 

inventory in containers is mobile. Stock is subject to sale and replacement during an insurance 

period. Nursery is an inventory coverage program wherein the inventory and its value may 

change during an insurance year. This fact inserts a complicating factor into any design of a 

nursery insurance program. 

The premise of the program with regard to establishing insurance is that the insured files a PIVR 

on or before the sales closing date or the date of application, whichever is later. This document 

is comparable to an acreage report, i.e., it contains the information needed to establish liability 

and to determine premium. Since the inventory may fluctuate during a crop year, the insured is 

given two opportunities to revise the PIVR, but only to increase liability. The limit of two 

revised PIVR during a crop year41 was imposed as an administrative measure to reduce the 

workload imposed on AIPs.42

 Policies with additional coverage for a practice (container or fieldgrown) also may increase liability with the PIE. The premium for the increased PIVR value is 

calculated from the month the increase is effective until the end of the insurance year while the 

premium for the PIE is calculated for the months the Endorsement is effective. 

The PIVR must be accompanied by two copies of the insured’s wholesale catalogs or price lists. 

The prices of plants for insurance purposes may not exceed the lesser of the prices established by 

the insured via the catalog or price list or the uniform national values contained in the Plant Price 

Schedule (PPS) issued by RMA. RMA established the PPS as the reference for maximum prices 

because “A number of public oversight agencies found that FCIC was exposing the nursery 

program to potential abuse and litigation when it allowed individual nurseries to set their own 

prices.”43 The PIVR must report the total value of the inventory of each of up to 16 insurable 

plant types (applies to all coverage types). At the request of the AIP, the insured must supply 

extremely detailed records to support the PIVR. 

A confusing element of the Crop Provisions is the term “basic unit.” Section 2 allows the basic 

unit for a practice to be divided into additional basic units by plant type. The first reference to 

basic unit in the previous sentence refers to all the insurable plants included in the practice in the 

county in which the insured has either a 100 percent interest or a partial interest with another 

 

41 Actually, there can be more than two under specific circumstances. However, these are not cited in the Crop Provisions as will 

be noted later. 

42 70 FR 37232: “Language is added to section 6(g) to limit the number of inventory revisions during the crop year to two. This is 

to reduce the administrative burden on reinsured companies and growers to track an unlimited amount of changes during the 

crop year.” 

43 63 FR 50967. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

46

party, as defined in the Basic Provisions. The second reference to basic unit in that sentence 

refers to the inventory of insurable plants of a defined plant type, again by share. 

Consider the usage of this term in the Crop Provisions. For example, the definition of “Field 

Market Value A” states “This allows the amount of insurance under the policy to be divided 

among the individual units ...” This statement implies that Field Market Value A pertains to the 

basic unit as defined by the Basic Provisions. The definition of “Field Market Value B” states 

“This is used to determine the loss of value for each individual unit...” This statement implies 

Field Market Value B refers to basic units by type of plant if such division has been made by the 

insured. The definition of “loss” defines the term as the result of subtracting Field Market Value 

B from Field Market Value A. But, as indicated previously, the two definitions appear 

incompatible. At the very least, there is nothing in the Crop Provisions that addresses how the 

“amount of insurance under the policy” is to be divided among the individual basic units if such 

division has occurred. 

The Nursery LASH also does not address the issue of dividing the “amount of insurance under 

the policy” among basic units by type. The only example contained therein pertains to a 

situation wherein a plant type (a basic unit) is unreported. In this example, the Field Market 

Value A for the unreported type is allocated pro-rata to the Field Market Value A for the two 

basic units that were reported. This procedure is consistent with normal procedure that governs 

unreported units. 

The Contractor examined the history of the Nursery regulation (7 CFR 457.114) to determine the 

background of this apparent discrepancy. Prior to the 99-073 Crop Provisions, a basic unit was 

defined in terms of distance: all locations within a five-mile radius were a basic unit. The 99-

073 Crop Provisions revised this definition to the common definition of basic unit and allowed 

optional units by plant type. Those provisions contained these limitations: “Although the basic 

unit may be divided into optional units in accordance with sections 2(b) and 2(c), you will still be 

considered to have a basic unit that will be used to establish the amount of insurance, crop year 

deductible, under report factor, premium, and the total amount of indemnity payable under this 

policy. ... If you elect optional units, your amount of insurance will be divided among optional 

units in relation to the actual value of plants in each optional unit.” 

FCIC published a proposed rule at 69 FR 48166 ff. that amended the unit provisions to eliminate 

optional units by plant type and converted these to basic units by plant type. Basic units by plant 

type could be further divided into optional units under this proposal. The proposed rule 

continued the provision that the amount of insurance and the other policy parameters would be 

calculated at the basic unit level as defined by the Basic Provisions. The proposed rule did not 

contain the language regarding allocation of the amount of insurance among units. The reason 

for the change from optional to basic units was specified as “... it was discovered that it was 

possible for growers to receive coverage in excess of the coverage level selected because most 

calculations still occurred at the basic unit level even though optional units were selected. In 

some cases, growers were able to obtain coverage that exceeded the amount permitted in the 

Act.”44 In response to a comment, FCIC further stated “...it is difficult to ascertain how the 

 

44 70 FR 37224-37225. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

47

amount of insurance, premium rates, deductibles determined at the basic unit level will apply to 

optional units. This level of complexity will make it difficult for agents to explain the policy to 

growers and reinsured companies to defend the policy provisions. For these reasons and those 

stated below, FCIC has elected to remove optional units from the policy ...”45 The provisions 

regarding calculation of the amount of insurance and other policy parameters at the basic unit 

level as defined by the Basic Provisions also were deleted. 

The Contractor believes certain language contained in the 06-073 Nursery Crop Provisions 

should have been deleted when the unit provisions were revised as described previously, and will 

interpret the Crop Provisions with this understanding. For example, the definition of “Field 

Market Value A” still contains the following sentence: “This allows the amount of insurance 

under the policy to be divided among the individual units in accordance with the actual value of 

the plants in the unit at the time of loss to determine whether you are entitled to an indemnity for 

insured losses in the basic unit.” This sentence was appropriate when the amount of insurance 

was calculated at the policy basic unit level and then was allocated to the individual units. It is 

not appropriate under the present Crop Provisions. The review will consider each section of the 

Crop Provisions in order. 

Definitions (Section 1) 

Amount of Insurance – The term is clearly defined but section 3(e) modifies the definition. In 

addition, section 7 (Premium) uses the term to determine the amount of premium. Which 

amount of insurance? Should calculation of premium use the term as defined or the term as 

modified by section 3(e)? In addition, the definition does not include CAT coverage. The 

Contractor suggests the term be defined as “For the purpose of calculating premium, the result of 

multiplying the basic unit value by your selected coverage level and by your share. For the 

purpose of determining the amount of any indemnity, the result of multiplying the basic unit 

value by your selected coverage level and by your share minus any indemnities paid under these 

Crop Provisions” and that section 7 be modified slightly as recommended later in this review. 

Basic Unit Value – The term is used repeatedly in the Crop Provisions, usually with a phrase 

such as “including any revision” or “including the Peak Inventory Endorsement if elected.” To 

simplify the Provisions, basic unit value can be defined as “The value of all insurable plants in a 

basic unit as declared on your original or revised PIVR and, if applicable, a Peak Inventory 

Endorsement.” In this manner, the definition includes all the qualifying phrases used in 

conjunction with the term. 

Container Grown – The definition uses the term “pot” which is a specific FCIC size name for 

one identified standard container. It is the smallest standard container, equivalent to ANSI 

Standard Class SP3. The term “pot” instead should be “standard container.” Inclusion of a 

definition for the term “practice” is different from most if not all other crops. That definition can 

be deleted by modifying the definition of “container grown” to read: “A nursery production 

practice in which plants are grown in standard nursery containers ...” 

 

45 70 FR 37228. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

48

Crop Year Deductible – The definition uses the phrase “sum of all plant inventory values for 

each basic unit.” This term subsumes the definition of basic unit value. This potentially creates 

confusion since the reader must stop and ask if the value included by this definition differs from 

the basic unit value. Accordingly, the definition can be simplified as follows: “The basic unit 

value multiplied by the deductible percentage minus the amount of any previously incurred 

deductible if you have timely reported each loss to us.” The present definition also states that 

any loss under the Rehabilitation Endorsement is not considered a loss. This is not needed with 

the revised definition since payments under the Rehabilitation Endorsement do not affect the 

deductible. 

Deductible Percentage – The term is not needed since the term deductible is defined in the 

Basic Provisions in the same manner. 

Field Grown – Inclusion of a definition for the term “practice’ is different from most if not all 

other crops. That definition can be deleted and the definition of “field grown’ modified to read: 

“A nursery production practice in which plants are grown in the ground ...” 

Field Market Value A – The present definition is wordy and confusing. It can be simplified as 

follows: “Our determination of the value of all insurable plants in the basic unit immediately 

prior to the occurrence of a loss event. This value will be determined in accordance with the 

requirements of section 6 of these Crop Provisions.” 

The definition states the value of undamaged liners will be reduced to reflect a survival factor. 

No similar provision is contained in the definition of Field Market Value B. Unless all liners are 

totally destroyed, the value of liners as determined for Field Market Value A will be relatively 

less than the value determined for Field Market Value B, which reduces the loss. There is no 

provision in section 6 (PIVR) that reduces the value of liners. Since the over-report factor is 

basic unit value divided by Field Market Value A, this tends to create an over-report factor 

greater than 0.000 which, as stated in the Special Provisions, will affect the indemnity.46 The 

producer also will pay more premiums since the value of liners reported on the PIVR is greater 

than the amount that is counted for Field Market Value A.

The Contractor notes Field Market Value A has been redefined in the Special Provisions, but 

only to incorporate an over-report factor in addition to the under-report factor. This does not 

affect the overall assessment of the definition. 

Given the recommended modification to the definition so it includes a reference to section 6 to 

determine values, the Contractor believes these discrepancies can be easily rectified by including 

a provision in section 6 to state that value of liners will be multiplied by the survival factor. This 

will automatically correct the quantity determined for basic unit value (and premium) and Field 

Market Values A and B, addressing the discrepancy. 

Field Market Value B – Similarly, the present definition is confusing and can be simplified. It 

contains a sentence stating losses will be determined for each unit. Section 12 states that an 

 

46 The Contractor notes there is a ten percent allowance in the determination of the over-report factor. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

49

under-report factor will be determined for the basic unit. The sentence in the definition is 

superfluous. The definition further states the value will be determined from the PPS or the 

insured’s catalog “plus” any reduction in value due to uninsured causes. The definition does not 

clearly state the catalog price or the PPS price will be adjusted to reflect any determined amount 

of damage. It can be simplified as follows: “Our determination of the value of all damaged and 

undamaged insurable plants in the basic unit following the occurrence of a loss event. This value 

will be determined in accordance with the requirements of section 6 of these Crop Provisions 

with an adjustment for the amount of damage we determine the plants have sustained.” 

Liners – The definition refers to containers that are greater than or equal to one inch in diameter 

but less than three inches in diameter. The word diameter refers to a line passing through the 

center of a circle. By definition, a container having the shape of a square or a rectangle must 

have a smaller dimension than either one inch or three inches if it fits within a circle of a 

specified diameter. This most likely is the reason that the EPL PPS has the following definition: 

“Size of the cell is based on the inch diameter for round cells or the inch dimension of the 

longest side for square or rectangular cells.” The definition would be more precise if it were 

worded “have a minimum dimension greater than or equal to one inch and a maximum 

dimension of less than three inches.” The term dimension can be defined as “the diameter for 

round standard containers or the length of a side for square or rectangular standard nursery 

containers.” In addition, the definition states that liners are “standard nursery containers” which 

is a term defined in a different manner than as used in the definition of liners. This definition is 

revised in the Special Provisions to state the minimum diameter is 5/8 inch. 

Loss – This word “loss” is used mostly in the generic sense in the Crop Provisions (“causes of 

loss,” “your loss,” etc.). There are two instances where the word as defined is used: in the 

definitions of the over- and under-report factors. In both cases, it is modified by the phrase “as 

adjusted by any previous under-report factor or over-report factor.” Incorporating this phrase 

into the definition of loss would eliminate the need to use it repeatedly elsewhere in the Crop 

Provisions. 

In addition, the term also is modified in the Crop Provisions with the sentence “Payments made 

under the Rehabilitation Endorsement will not be considered a previous loss when calculating 

the (under-) over-report factor.” This can be reduced to stating “Payments made under the 

Rehabilitation Endorsement are not considered to be a loss” as part of the definition of loss. 

Marketable – The definition is less than precise. The definition uses the term “it” but does not 

provide an antecedent for the term. The definition uses the term market but does not indicate if 

the term refers to usual and customary market channels employed by the nursery operation or is a 

secondary market where lesser values prevail. The LASH defines the term to mean a plant that 

can be sold for any amount of money irrespective of its undamaged value. The definition would 

be more precise if worded “A plant that can be sold for any non-zero value.” 

Monthly Proration Factors – The definition states these factors are used when “... you do not 

insure the nursery plants for an entire year.” This implies the factors apply when all nursery 

plants are not insured for the entire crop year. The definition would be more precise if the phrase 

“all or part of” was inserted between the words “insure” and “the.” 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

50

Occurrence Deductible – The first sentence is not needed as part of a definition. If the sentence 

is not deleted, the term “inventory value” should be replaced by “Field Market Value A.” 

This term also has been redefined on the Special Provisions to include reference to the overreport factor. Otherwise, the definition is unchanged from that contained in the Crop Provisions. 

Over-report Factor – (from the Special Provisions) Most of the extensive words following the 

term are not a definition but instead are an explanation of how the factor is used. The 

explanation more properly belongs in section 15 (Examples). The factor can be defined as “The 

result of subtracting the total of all previous losses from the basic unit value, dividing this 

difference by Field Market Value A, and subtracting 1.100.” 

Plant Price Schedule – The definition states the subject schedule establishes the “maximum” 

insurable value. However, the Pilot Nursery Growers Price Endorsement (06-073c) allows 

higher prices. A more descriptive term would be “highest value accepted for insurance purposes 

unless otherwise allowed by the policy or an endorsement to the policy.” 

Practice – This definition is not deemed necessary in the Basic Provisions for all other crops. 

The slight modification to the definitions of field grown and container grown renders this 

definition unneeded. 

Sales Closing Date – The definition references a 30-day waiting period before commencement 

of coverage as specified elsewhere in the Crop Provisions. The referenced sections contain more 

provisions than the 30-day waiting period. The definition would be more precise if it were 

worded “All applications, including those for amended coverage, are subject to the terms of 

sections 3(d) and 9(a) of these Crop Provisions.” The word “new” is not needed. 

Standard Nursery Containers – The definition uses the word “diameter.” See the discussion 

under “liners.” This definition also is revised in the Special Provisions to allow a minimum 

diameter of 5/8 inch. 

Survival Factor – The term is described in terms of the date of insurance attachment. However, 

since the date of insurance attachment may be unknown, more precise terminology would be “A 

value specified in the Special Provisions that denotes the expected percentage of such plants that 

will be marketable.” 

Under-report factor – See the discussion under “over-report factor.” 

The Contractor’s observations and recommendations with regard to section 1 are intended to 

clarify terms to avoid potential misinterpretations and conflict. The recommendations also 

would simplify the Crop Provisions such that the intent is more clearly communicated. The 

observations and recommendations do not constitute any findings of specific vulnerabilities. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

51

The Basic Provisions (05-BR and 11-BR)47 state that the term “harvest” shall be as defined in a 

Crop Provisions for the “... purpose of determining the end of the insurance period.” The Crop 

Provisions specify the provisions in section 9 of the Crop Provisions are “in addition to” the 

provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions which include harvest as a condition for the end 

of the insurance period. No such definition is contained in the Nursery Crop Provisions. The 

Contractor recommends a definition of harvest be included for this purpose. For example, the 

conditions specified in sections 9(b)(ii) and (iii) could be included in a definition of harvest. 

The review of the policy documents indicates some simplification and clarification can be 

achieved by defining some additional terms. These include: 

Catalog – Any document issued by your nursery used to advise actual and potential buyers of 

the amount you will charge for purchases of each plant included in the inventory and offered for 

sale. Such documents may be issued by season, by plant type, or other basis consistent with your 

business practices. The documents can be in any form, but must meet the following minimum 

standards: 

(1) Be type-written and legible; 

(2) Show an issue date on the cover page (may be handwritten); 

(3) Contain the name, address, and phone number of your nursery; 

(4) Be provided to customers and used in the sale of your plants; and 

(5) List each plant’s name (scientific or common), plant or container size, and wholesale 

price. 

With this definition, section 6(k) of the Crop Provisions can be deleted and references to catalog 

or price list can be shortened to catalog. 

Lowest Price – The lower of the minimum price stated in your catalog or the price contained in 

the Plant Price Schedule for a plant and size. The minimum value in your catalog is the lowest 

price at which you will sell that plant and size to any buyer including all discounts for volume or 

any other factor. 

With these definitions, significant simplifications can be made. For example, “The price for 

each plant and size listed on your PIVR will be the lower of the Plant Price Schedule price or the 

lowest wholesale price in your nursery catalog or price list submitted in accordance with section 

6(k)” can be stated as “The inventory value you report on your PIVR must be based on the 

lowest price for every plant included in the inventory.” 

Section 2 Unit Division 

The Basic Provisions define a basic unit as “All insurable acreage of the insured crop...” 

Section 2(a) states “If you elect additional coverage for a practice, a basic unit, as defined in 

section 1 of the Basic Provisions...” may be divided into additional basic units by plant type. In 

other words, the Nursery Crop Provisions make a production practice equivalent to a crop. 

Further, each plant type can be a basic unit. The reason for this treatment is not intuitive. There 

is no difference in the total premium if basic units by plant type are elected (assuming same 

coverage level for all plant types). There is no difference in the requirements to establish 

 

47 See the definition of second crop. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

52

insurance. The insured is required to establish the value of the inventory by type on the PIVR 

within practice irrespective of the choice of unit (policy or by plant type). The terms can be 

simplified by stating a basic unit is established by practice for CAT coverage and for each plant 

type within practice for additional coverage. 

An outcome of the manner in which a policy basic unit is defined is that policyholders who 

choose CAT are eligible for at least two units – container practice and field grown practice – for 

nursery. For most insurable commodities, CAT policyholders are restricted to one unit within 

share. 

Section 2(b) names each insurable plant type. Types normally are specified in the actuarial 

documents. The purpose of doing so in the Crop Provisions is not clear, especially since the type 

names and codes are included in the Special Provisions. The text does not clearly designate 

whether basic units by type must be elected for all insurable types included on the PIVR or 

whether a basic unit by type may be elected for one type while several other types can be 

included in another basic unit. References to types may be removed, simplifying the provisions 

and making them consistent with other programs (which stipulate the insurable types in the 

actuarial documents). 

Section 3 Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities 

Section 3(e) states the amount of insurance will be reduced by the amount of any indemnity. 

This condition is not included in the definition. If this definition as well as the definition of basic 

unit value is modified as recommended, section 3(e) is not needed. 

Section 3(f) states the amount of insurance may be increased if the nursery is restocked. Restock 

is not a defined term in the Crop Provisions. It is defined in the Peak Inventory Endorsement. 

Since it is used in both documents, the definition should be in the Crop Provisions. The 

difference between the provision in section 3(f) and the two increases in the PIVR allowed by 

section 6 is not clear. Is a revised PIVR for restock allowed in addition to the two increases 

authorized by section 6? If not, the provision is superfluous. If yes, there should be language 

specifying this exemption. This exception is contained in the LASH. This is not the appropriate 

vehicle for policy language. 

Section 4 Contract Changes 

The Contractor has no comments. 

Section 5 Cancellation and Termination Dates 

The Contractor has no comments. 

Section 6 PIVR 

Section 6(a) overrides section 6 of the Basic Provisions in its entirety. The requirement of 

section 6(b) of the Basic Provisions to file a “zero acreage report” (or zero PIVR) is not included 

in section 6 of the Nursery Crop Provisions. 

Section 6(b)(1) does not contain a date certain by which the insured must be notified if the 

inventory or the catalog or price list is not acceptable. Most crop provisions that have a 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

53

provision allowing the AIP to reject coverage identify the timeframe for notice to the insured if 

the insurance will not attach. 

Section 6(b)(2) states insurance will not attach until “30 days” after receipt of the required 

documents if such documents are not timely filed. Again, the LASH contains policy language 

that interprets “30 days” to mean that 30 full days must elapse before insurance attaches, i.e., 

insurance does not attach until the “31st day” after receipt of the application and required 

documents. The Crop Provisions should provide similar specificity. 

Section 6(c)(2) contains a provision that the insured must be able to “... properly obtain and 

maintain nursery stock...” “Stock plants” is a defined term. Section 8(i) excludes stock plants 

from insurance. The term “insured plants” would be a more appropriate in section 6(c)(2). 

Section 6(e)(1) states the price for each plant and size “listed on your PIVR” must meet certain 

criteria. However, section 6(c)(1) requires the PIVR to contain only the plant inventory values 

for each plant type. Section 6(e)(1) instead should state the price for each plant and size used to 

calculate the inventory valuation reported on the PIVR for each plant type must meet the criteria 

specified in that section. 

Section 6(e)(2) is not needed. The previous section adequately limits the price that will be 

insured. In addition, the insured price can be increased under a Nursery Grower’s Price 

Endorsement. 

Section 6(e)(3) begins with the statement “If you have previously made a claim and ... plant was 

damaged prior to the submission of the PIVR for the current crop year ...” The provision then 

states it will be insurable for the lesser of the PPL or the catalog or price list value if the loss 

adjuster is unable to determine when the damage occurred. However, the value can be reduced 

[presumably, by us] at any time the extent of the damage is discovered. Section 6(h) states 

insurable plants damaged before insurance attaches must be insured at a reduced value. The 

Contractor is unable to determine the purpose of section 6(e)(3). If damaged plants must be 

included in the inventory value at a reduced price (section 6(h)), the inability of the loss adjuster 

to determine when the damage occurred should not be a factor. Section 6(e) should contain the 

provision that reduces the value for plants damaged before insurance attached. As it currently 

reads, the value of the plants is the lesser of the PPS or the catalog. 

In addition, section 6(e)(3) refers to the “Eligible Plant List price.” The defined term is Plant 

Price List. The defined term is used in sections 6(e)(1) and (2). 

Section 6(f) contains certain provisions affecting practices for which the Catastrophic Risk 

Protection Endorsement has been elected. Among these is a requirement that the PIVR contain 

the “actual inventory value on the date insurance attaches.” It is not clear how this differs from 

the requirements of section 6(e), which requires the PIVR to “...reflect your insurable nursery 

plant inventory value by basic unit.” This raises the question of what values are to be included 

on the PIVR – the value of a plant as it is in the inventory on the date the PIVR is prepared or the 

value at which the nursery anticipates inventory will be sold. The insurance includes a full 12

month period. Plants are growing continuously and changing value as growth accrues. The size 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

54

and value of a plant on June 1 likely differs from the size and value of the same plant on April 1 

of the following year. The Crop Provisions merely state that the value cannot exceed certain 

parameters but are silent (with the exception of CAT coverage) as to the appropriate value at the 

date the PIVR is prepared. Section 14 of the Underwriting Guide expands on this provision to 

state that all PIVR (CAT and additional coverage) must be reflective of the actual value on the 

date submitted. The Underwriting Guide is not part of the policy. 

Section 6(f)(1) requires the insured to produce adequate documentation upon demand of the AIP. 

The information contained in this provision is essentially the same as that contained in section 

6(c)(2). A definition could simplify the Crop Provisions. 

Section 6(f)(3) is identical to section 6(c)(3). There appears to be no reason for this since section 

6(c)(3) applies regardless of the chosen coverage level whereas section 6(f) applies only to CAT 

coverage. 

Due to the similarities or identical content of section 6(f) compared to section 6(c), a minor 

change in section 6(c)(2) to make that section mandatory for CAT and permissive for additional 

policies would eliminate the need for section 6(f) in its entirety. 

Section 6(g) allows the insured to submit two revised PIVR “... prior to 30 days before the end 

of the crop year.” This phrase is not needed since section 6(g)(4) states the revised PIVR will 

not be effective earlier than 30 days after its receipt. Clearly, the inventory value cannot be 

increased for any part of a crop year if the revised PIVR is received on or after the 30th day 

before the end of that crop year since insurance will not attach until the 31st day after submission. 

Section 6(g)(1) requires the revised PIVR to contain the same information as required in section 

6(c). It appears that section 6(e) also applies. Section 6(g)(1) instead should state that the 

revised PIVR must meet all the requirements of an original PIVR. 

Section 6(g)(1) also contains a statement that the limitations on changes to the coverage level 

specified in section 3(d) do not apply when a new plant type is added. Section 3(c)(1)(iv) 

already advises the insured that a coverage level must be selected when a new plant type is 

added. The statement in section 6(g)(1) is not needed. The sentence regarding limitations on 

changes to the coverage level if plants are added to an already reported plant type also is not 

needed. 

Section 6(g)(2) states that an inspection will be performed whenever the total of all basic unit 

values included on the PIVR increases by 50 percent or more due to a revised PIVR. However, 

the insured can file a Peak Inventory Endorsement to increase the amount of insurance by 200 

percent with no mandatory inspection requirement. An increase of 200 percent in the amount of 

insurance means the sum of the basic unit values increases by more than 200 percent. It is not 

intuitively obvious why an increase in insured value that is less than one-quarter of that allowed 

by the Peak Inventory Endorsement should trigger a mandatory inspection. 

Section 6(g)(3) states that an inspection by the AIP is discretionary whenever the revised PIVR 

increases the total of the basic unit values by less than 50 percent. Section 21 of the Basic 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

55

Provisions contains detailed information regarding access to the insured crop and records. The 

reason for this additional language is not clear. 

Section 6(g)(5) states that the requested increase will be denied if a loss occurs within 30 days 

after the request has been received. However, insurance does not attach until 30 days after the 

request has been received. Any loss during those 30 days before insurance attaches is an 

uninsured loss. The provision is not necessary. 

Section 6(h)(2) states the “... plants will be removed from the PIVR ...” Only the basic unit 

value by plant type is listed on the PIVR. Plants are listed in the supporting documentation. The 

provision instead should read “... the value of such plants will be removed from the basic unit 

value reported on the PIVR ...” 

Section 6(i) states that the insured “... must report the full unit value...” As noted previously, 

the basis to be used to develop the basic unit values is not defined anywhere in the Crop 

Provisions except with regard to CAT coverage. However, the primary intent of this section is to 

advise the insured that any claim may be reduced in accordance with section 12(d). This notice 

should be included in section 6(e). Section 6(i) appears to be in lieu of section 6(f) of the Basic 

Provisions although this is not stated. Section 6(f) allows the AIP to determine the insurable 

acreage and assess premium or to deny liability. The Nursery Crop Provisions deny liability in 

all instances. No discretion is granted to the AIP. 

Section 6(k) establishes standards of acceptability for the catalog or price list. This information 

should be included in a definition as recommended since the term is used frequently in the Crop 

Provisions. 

Elimination of the unnecessary or overly complex language in this section could offer both 

meaningful improvements to the clarity of the program and reduce redundancy. 

Section 7 Premium 

Section 7(a) states that the premium will be calculated using the amount of insurance. As noted 

previously, the term amount of insurance is defined but then is modified by section 3(e). The 

Contractor recommended a modification to the definition for the purpose of defining the amount 

on which premium is based. In addition, section 7(a) must be modified to state the procedure 

stated therein applies to additional coverage, and that the result of that calculation will be further 

multiplied by 0.55 if CAT coverage is elected. 

Section 7(a) states the premium will be determined by multiplying by the monthly proration 

factor, if applicable. There is a proration factor included on the actuarial documents for every 

month of the year. A proration factor thus always is applicable. 

Section 7(b)(2) states the premium will be prorated if the insured submits a revised PIVR “... to 

report an increase in inventory value ...” Section 6(g)(6) prohibits the filing of a revised PIVR 

to reduce the inventory value. The clause in section 7(b)(2) is not needed. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

56

Section 7(c) states that the premium will be charged for the entire month “... if your premium is 

prorated...” The clause is not necessary since the remainder of this provision adequately 

describes the calculation of premium for a partial month. 

Section 7(d) must be modified via a statement on the Special Provisions for the remaining life of 

the 08-073 Nursery Crop Provisions because Section 508 (d) (4) of the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 changed the billing date to August 15 beginning with the 2012 crop year.48

 

However, the entire provision is not clearly stated. Presumably, section 7(d)(1) refers to April 1st

of the crop year not the April 1st preceding the crop year. Section 7(d)(3) appears to apply only 

when the application is submitted on or after April 1st of the crop year since 7(d)(1) states the 

premium will be billed on the date contained in the Special Provisions. Section 7(d)(3) is a 

provision in lieu of section 7(a) of the Basic Provisions and thus appears to apply to all 

premiums owed for the crop year. This provision should be incorporated into 7(d)(2) as another 

sentence. 

Section 8 Insured Crop and Plants 

The introductory language in section 8 refers to the Eligible Price List. Although this should be 

Eligible Plant List, the term is not needed since section 8(a) contains the requirement that the 

plants be on the Eligible Plant List. The section as worded conveys an impression that insurance 

may be elected for plants and plant types whereas section 3 states that all plants in a practice 

must be insured. This in part is due to the multiple layering of clauses. The introductory 

material can be simplified by deleting the words “contained on the Eligible Price (Plant) List,” 

moving the phrase “in which you have a share” to subsection (a), and re-designating the existing 

subsections. This is the normal placement of the share requirement. 

Section 9 of the Basic Provisions defines insurable acreage. Those provisions clearly do not 

apply to nursery. However, the Nursery Crop Provisions refer to inspections to determine if the 

nursery is acceptable. No standards to define an acceptable nursery are contained in the Crop 

Provisions, a condition that would be analogous to the description of insurable and uninsurable 

land. It seems appropriate that the Crop Provisions should contain a section that describes an 

insurable nursery. Since such inspections are required in some circumstances, standards for 

making such determinations must exist. 

Section 9 Insurance Period 

Section 9(b) of the Crop Provisions does not contain a provision that ends insurance on any plant 

when it is removed from the nursery or from its growing medium. Section 9 of 05-BR also does 

not contain language that ends insurance on part of a unit upon the occurrence of a certain event. 

The Basic Provisions 11-BR do end insurance on part of a unit upon the occurrence of an event; 

however, those provisions reference “harvest” as the condition that ends the insurance period. If 

the Nursery Crop Provisions are updated to 11-BR the Contractor recommends the term 

“harvest” be defined in the context of the nursery program as recommended earlier in this 

evaluation. 

 

48 Due to contract change dates, the provision first applies to nursery for the 2013 crop year. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

57

Section 10 Causes of Loss 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 11 Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 12 Settlement of Claim 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 13 Late and Prevented Planting 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 14 Written Agreements 

Section 14(c) provides an exemption to the requirements of section 14(a). The two sections can 

be combined into 14(a). 

Section 15 Examples

The examples provided in section 15 would have greater benefit if it followed the calculation 

steps stated in section 12 and if more explanation were included. For example, the example for 

the single unit case states the “plant inventory value” reported by you is $100,000. This should 

be identified (perhaps parenthetically) as the “basic unit value” to conform to the defined terms. 

Step (2) of the example is Field Market Value A minus Field Market Value B whereas this is 

step (c) in section 12. The example omits the step in section 12 wherein the occurrence 

deductible is calculated. The example would be better phrased if it were worded as “our loss 

adjuster determines that the value of the inventory immediately before the loss (Field Market 

Value A) was $125,000 and the value after the loss (Field Market Value B) is $80,000. These 

small adjustments would enhance the effect of the example. Similar changes would enhance the 

example of the Peak Inventory Endorsement. 

Review of the Peak Inventory Endorsement 

The Peak Inventory Endorsement allows the insured to temporarily increase the value of the 

insured inventory. This Endorsement is useful for nurseries that have significant seasonality of 

inventories such as one that grows a significant number of poinsettias or similar plants typically 

associated with specific holidays. Bedding plants are another example of inventory with 

significant seasonality. The Endorsement limits the responsibility to pay premium to the period 

of time when the seasonal plants are contained in the inventory. 

Only one Endorsement may be purchased for each basic unit unless a loss has occurred and the 

insured restocks the nursery. In that event, one additional Endorsement may be purchased for 

each loss/restock event. 

Section 1 Definitions 

Peak Amount of Insurance – The definition states that this term applies “for each basic unit.” 

Under the Nursery Crop Provisions, a basic unit may exist by practice or by plant type within 

practice. The definition would be more precise if it were worded “for each basic unit established 

by you under the Nursery Crop Provisions.” 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

58

Peak Inventory Value Report – The definition references the “value of insurable plants ... on 

the PIVR.” Since there may be more than one PIVR, the definition should refer to “the original 

or most recently revised PIVR.” The definition needs a verb at the beginning of the last clause, 

such as “and meets the other requirements ...” 

Peak Inventory Premium Adjustment Factor – The definition contains the phrase “... for the 

month in which coverage commenced.” The defined term is coverage commencement date. 

Hence, the phrase should read “... for the month containing the coverage commencement date.” 

Section 2 Eligibility 

Section 2(c)(1) states “... each plant type basic unit will be considered a separate Peak Inventory 

Endorsement.” This statement should be qualified such that basic units by plant type must have 

been elected under the Crop Provisions. 

Section 2(c)(2) does not contain a specific date by which the AIP must reject the Peak Inventory 

Value Report. 

Section 3 Coverage 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 4 Peak Insurance Period 

Section 4 establishes a peak insurance period that is the same as the defined term “coverage 

term.” The section seems unnecessary since section 3(a) states the amount of insurance is 

increased for the coverage term. It is not clear what the intent of this section had been. 

Section 5 Premium 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 6 Reporting Requirements 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 7 Liability Limit 

Section 7 limits the peak amount of insurance to 200 percent of the amount of insurance 

established under the Nursery Crop Provisions. Since the amount of insurance can change (as 

discussed previously), this would be worded more precisely if it stated “the amount of insurance 

in effect under the Nursery Crop Provisions on the date the Peak Endorsement is submitted” or 

“the amount of insurance established under the originally submitted PIVR” or some other 

description of the exact amount of insurance that is meant. 

Review of the Rehabilitation Endorsement 

The Rehabilitation Endorsement is an optional coverage for field grown nursery plants. The 

endorsement compensates the insured for the usual and customary costs for labor and materials 

associated with pruning and righting of damaged plants. The endorsement pays the actual costs 

multiplied by the underreport factor whenever the actual costs exceed the lesser of 2.0 percent of 

Field Market Value A or $5,000 but not to exceed 7.5 percent of the value of the damaged plants 

multiplied by the underreport factor, coverage level, and share. The maximum amount payable 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

59

in any crop year is 7.5 percent of the basic unit value multiplied by the underreport factor, 

coverage level, and share. 

The loss adjuster must determine: 1) there is a reasonable expectation of recovery of the 

damaged plants, and 2) rehabilitation is practical, i.e., the cost of rehabilitation will not exceed 

the value of the plant. These determinations are based on the type and extent of the damage. 

Section 1 Eligibility 

Section 1(a) is not necessary. Section 11 of the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement (09-

CAT) excludes all endorsements and options that extend the coverage available under any crop 

policy offered by FCIC. 

Section 1(b) does not use terms defined in the Crop Provisions. It should state that all plants 

reported under the field grown practice on the PIVR must be insured. The second sentence 

should state that plants reported under the container practice are not covered by the endorsement. 

Section 1(c) seemingly is written with an expectation that once insurance is elected for a practice 

the insurance will be continuously in force on that practice. However, the Crop Provisions allow 

the insured to change coverage (CAT to additional or vice versa) each year. 

Section 2 Coverage 

The last sentence in section 2(d)(2) is not needed since the section already states the values will 

be determined in accordance with section 6 of the Crop Provisions. 

Sections 2(d)(2) and (e) should state the maximum payments are 7.5 percent of the Field Market 

Value A [of the rehabilitated plants or of all plants, as appropriate] multiplied by the underreport 

factor, coverage level, and share. The language in the endorsement is vague. 

Section 3 Cancellation 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Review of the Pilot Nursery Growers Price Endorsement

The Price Endorsement is an optional coverage that allows the insured to place values greater 

than those established by the PPS on selected plants. The greater value must be less than or 

equal to the price established by the insured’s catalog or price list. This endorsement is intended 

to respond to assertions that the PPS is an imperfect representation of the range of prices that 

exist in the marketplace for nursery plants. 

The endorsement introduces new terminology and modifies the Crop Provisions. Although the 

Special Provisions have been modified to introduce an over-report factor with associated changes 

to the definitions of Field Market Values A and B and of occurrence deductible, those changes 

are not compatible with the Pilot Nursery Grower’s Price Endorsement. The changes are not 

compatible because the definition of over-report factor and the revised definitions for other terms 

limit the allowable price to the lesser of the PPS or the catalog or price list. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

60

The Contractor believes the endorsement can be significantly simplified with a few 

modifications. For example, the endorsement can contain a provision such as the following: 

“In lieu of the provisions of section 6(e)(1) of the Crop Provisions, the price applicable to each 

plant and size included in the insurable inventory shall be: 

(i) the lesser of the value in the Plant Price Schedule or the lowest price included in your 

catalog or price list; or 

(ii) for plants you designate and we accept, a price greater than that shown on the Plant Price 

List but equal to or less than the price contained in your catalog or price list at which you 

have made the greatest quantity of sales during one of the most recent three crop years as 

measured by the number of plants sold.” 

The Contractor already had recommended section 6(e)(2) of the Crop Provisions be deleted 

because it is not needed. The above change enables many simplifications to the terms of the 

endorsement, as follows. 

Section 1 Definitions 

Field Market Values A and B – The Contractor earlier had recommended revision of these 

terms to refer to section 6 of the Crop Provisions for the pricing information presently contained 

in those definitions. The recommended change to the endorsement modifies section 6 such that 

the revised definitions remain appropriate. Hence, these definitions can be deleted from the 

endorsement. 

PIVR – The definition in the Crop Provisions is adequate with appropriate changes in the 

endorsement. 

Upgraded Plant, Upgraded Plant Price, Upgraded Plant List – These definitions are not 

needed with appropriate changes in the endorsement. 

Verifiable Sales Records – The Crop Provisions require “...acceptable records of sales and 

purchases of plants for the three previous crop years in the amount of detail we require 

...Acceptable records must contain the name and telephone number of the purchaser or seller, as 

applicable, names of the plants, the number of each plant sold or purchased, and the sales price 

for each plant.” The only substantive difference between the requirements in the Crop 

Provisions versus the definition in the endorsement is that records must be available for past 

three years (Crop Provisions) versus most recent year (endorsement). If a definition is needed, it 

should be in the Crop Provisions. 

Section 2 Eligibility 

Sections 2(a) and 2(b) require an “upgraded plant report” which serves as the application for the 

endorsement. The report identifies those plants for which a higher insurance price is requested 

and the amount of the higher price. The basic unit value reported on the PIVR is based on the 

higher price. The Crop Provisions require documentation upon request that contains the name of 

all plants in the inventory and the amount of the price being established for insurance. It should 

be possible to create a flag that identifies those plants for which the higher price is requested 

rather than requiring the insured to prepare two separate lists of plants to support the PIVR. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

61

Section 2(b)(4) requires the insured have the upgraded plant prices “approved by us” at the time 

of application or the time of loss. It does not seem reasonable to believe a businessperson will 

enter into a contract of insurance and owe premium based on an unknown approval. Yet, the 

provisions require documentation at the time of application if the upgraded price exceeds the 

PPS by 50 percent or more or at the time of loss if the increase is less 50 percent. This provision 

no doubt was intended to reduce the amount of paperwork required at the time of application. 

This provision seems contrary to good business practice on the part of both the insured and the 

AIP since both are subject to uncertain outcomes with regard to liability. There is no provision 

regarding the amount of premium owed if one or more plants on the upgraded plant list are 

rejected, which can occur “at time of application or time of loss.” 

Section 3 Upgraded Plant Prices 

Much of section 3 contains procedures for valuing plants under defined circumstances and 

basically is procedural in nature. It appears the same principles apply to the valuation of any 

plant, whether upgraded or not, whose value is included in the determination of the basic unit 

value. It is conjectural as to whether these procedures should be included in the specifics of the 

Endorsement or should be relegated to another format for presentation to the producer (such as 

the PPS, which is included within the definition of the contract). The information is out of place 

in this document. 

Section 4 Coverage 

Section 4(d) states that the upgraded plant prices will not be used to calculate Field Market 

Values A and B if using those values would cause the under-report factor to be less than 0.50 for 

that loss event. It is not clear how use of the upgraded prices would “cause” the under-report 

factor to be less than 0.50. The revised definitions of Field Market Values A and B state that the 

upgraded prices will be used to determine those values. Since the upgraded price is included in 

both the numerator and the denominator, there is no reason to expect inclusion of those prices 

will reduce the under-report factor. 

Section 5 Reporting Requirements 

The Contractor has no comments on this section. 

Review of the Special Provisions of Insurance

The Contractor reviewed randomly selected documents from the 2012 crop year actuarial 

materials and chose the Special Provisions for Autauga County, Alabama as representative of the 

information provided for insureds. 

The Special Provisions are intended primarily to provide information unique to a particular 

locality or that is subject to relatively frequent changes. This provides an alternative to the 

lengthy, involved processes under the Administrative Procedures Act. That being said, the 

Special Provisions also can be used when necessary to modify terms of the policy that have 

proven to be problematic or inadequate. This is possible because the order of precedence places 

the Special Provisions in control of the Crop Provisions. 

The Special Provisions were amended for the 2011 crop year to include an over-report factor and 

to make changes in the definitions of Field Market Value A, under-report factor, and occurrence 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

62

deductible to accommodate this revision. The over-report factor is defined as the ratio of the 

basic unit value minus previous losses divided by Field Market Value A, with 1.10 subtracted 

from this quotient. For the 2012 crop year, the definition was modified to be the basic unit value 

minus previous losses divided by Field Market Value A plus previous sales with 1.10 subtracted 

from this quotient.49

The change in the denominator for 2012 has no effect if there are no previous sales. When 

comparing the examples included in the Special Provisions, the only change is to include 

$10,000 of previous sales in the denominator for the 2012 Special Provisions. Doing so 

increases the indemnity by $8,250 compared to the example used for crop year 2011.50

In both years, the definition of over-report factor does not limit the factor to 0.00. This means 

that the over-report factor can be a value between 0.00 and -0.10 whenever the basic unit value is 

greater than Field Market Value A plus previous sales up to the point where it is 1.10 times that 

denominator. The factor would be as large as -0.10 if the basic unit value equals Field Market 

Value A (ignoring previous losses and sales) since that ratio would result in 1.00 minus 1.10. 

Table 3 illustrates the effect of failing to include this limitation in the definition. The data and 

steps included in Table 3 are the same as in the Special Provisions, but previous sales are 

increased from $10,000 to $24,000. If the factor were limited to 0.00, the indemnity would be 

$24,000 with these data. However, the failure to include the limit results in an indemnity of 

$28,600. 

 

49 The definition in the Special Provisions contains this arithmetic expression following the description in words: “(i.e., [(basic 

unit value – total of all previous losses as adjusted by any previous under-report factor or over-report factor)/(Field Market 

Value A + insured value of plants listed on the verified sales records)] – 1.100). 

50 See the Special Provisions for 2011 and 2012 crop years to compare the results. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

63

Table 3. Illustration of Effect of Failing to Limit Over-Report Factor to 0.00 

Assume the basic unit value = $125,000, Field Market Value = $100,000, and previous sales = $24,000. The 

indemnity would be calculated as follows with the language in the Special Provisions: 

Step (1) Determine the over-report factor 

($125,000 ÷ ($100,000 + $24,000)) – 1.10 = -0.092; 

Step (2) Field Market Value A minus Field Market Value B 

$100,000 – $50,000 = $50,000; 

Step (3) The result of 1.000 minus step (1) multiplied by the result of step (2) 

$50,000 x (1.000 – (-0.092)) = $54,600; 

Step (4) Result of step (3) minus the occurrence deductible 

$54,600 – $26,000 = $28,600; and 

Step (5) Result of step (4) multiplied by your share 

$28,600 x 1.000 = $28,600 indemnity payment. 

Assuming the same information, but with a limit of 0.00 imposed on the over-report factor, the indemnity would be 

calculated as follows: 

Step (1) Determine the over-report factor 

Max ($125,000 ÷ ($100,000 + $24,000)) – 1.10, 0) = 0.00; 

Step (2) Field Market Value A minus Field Market Value B 

$100,000 – $50,000 = $50,000; 

Step (3) The result of 1.000 minus step (1) multiplied by the result of step (2) 

$50,000 x (1.000 – (0.000)) = $50,000; 

Step (4) Result of step (3) minus the occurrence deductible 

$50,000 – $26,000 = $24,000; and 

Step (5) Result of step (4) multiplied by your share 

$24,000 x 1.000 = $24,000 indemnity payment. 

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department. 

The over-report factor eliminates any indemnity fairly rapidly. If the net basic unit value 

exceeds the net Field Market Value A by 35 percent, the indemnity is reduced by 50.2 percent. 

If the ratio is 1.50, the indemnity is reduced by 87.4 percent. The purpose of this factor must be 

to reduce the incentives for over-reporting of inventories by those insureds choosing CAT for a 

practice. Since there is no premium paid by the insured for CAT coverage, there is no financial 

cost for over-reporting. However, introduction of this factor is indicative that the PPS and 

requiring recent sales records by CAT policyholders have not achieved the effect of limiting the 

over-reporting of inventories. Although the loss adjuster presumably would limit the amount of 

any indemnity appropriately, over-reporting by CAT policyholders introduces wasteful 

allocation of subsidy dollars in years that no indemnity is owed, increases the loss adjustment 

subsidy, and may increase underwriting gains or reduce underwriting losses under the SRA. 

The remainder of this review of the Special Provisions will focus on those statements the 

Contractor believes have certain deficiencies or are duplicative of other terms of the policy. 

Since the provisions often are not identified with a title or other designation, the Contractor will 

attempt to provide enough description so the particular provision can be found. 

The first special provision defines a procedure to determine the value of damaged plants that will 

fully recover at some time after damage. The procedure is a ratio of the months to recover 

divided by the months of growth needed to return to the stage immediately before damage. The 

complement of this ratio multiplied by the “insurable plant price” is the value of the damaged 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

64

plant. There is an omission in the procedure: it should state, if the result of 1.00 minus the ratio 

is less than zero, the plant has no value. Several pages later in the Special Provisions, there is a 

statement that a plant is considered destroyed if the number of months needed to achieve 

recovery equals or exceeds the age of the plant at the time of damage. This material should be 

consolidated. The term “insurable plant price” is not defined. A procedure is outlined in section 

6 of the Crop Provisions to determine the allowable price for insurance (also in the Nursery 

Grower’s Price Endorsement). 

The second special provision outlines a process to determine the value for a plant in a container 

for which a price is not listed in the grower’s catalog or price sheet but does have a price for 

other sizes. The procedure involves establishing a linear relationship of prices listed in both the 

catalog and the PPS and applying the ratio of those prices to the schedule price for the size not 

included in the grower’s catalog. This provision initially was added to the Special Provisions for 

the 2008 crop year and initially referenced only the nearest size for developing the price 

relationship. This was modified for the 2010 crop year for situations when there is more than 

one size nearest to the missing plant. This gives rise to a question the Contractor raised earlier. 

What is the relevant price for establishing inventory value? The price of the plant as it exists on 

the sales closing date or the price at which the grower expects to sell it? A missing size may be a 

plant the grower intends to transplant and sell in a larger container sometime during the crop 

year. In any event, it seems the information should be a part of the EPL PPS rather than 

contained in the Special Provisions. 

The next special provision is a statement that the Eligible Plant List and Plant List (sic) Schedule 

are part of the actuarial documents. These documents are defined in the Crop Provisions and are 

referenced several times therein. The Basic Provisions define “policy” as “The agreement 

between you and us to insure an agricultural commodity and consisting of the accepted 

application, these Basic Provisions, the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, other applicable 

endorsements or options, the actuarial documents ...” Hence, the referenced documents are 

included in the policy by definition. The statement in the Special Provisions is not needed. 

The next special provision deals with omitted plants, a statement that first was added for the 

2008 crop year. These are plants in the inventory but are not listed on the grower’s catalog or 

price list. The statement also applies to plants in the inventory and listed on the catalog or price 

list, but for which there is no corresponding price. This sentence could be deleted if the 

parentheses around “by either common or botanical name” are deleted and the phrase “or a price 

is not listed” is inserted following that phrase. 

The statement makes such plants uninsurable for the current crop year but advises the insured 

that the value of such plants will be included in Field Market Value B (thereby reducing any 

indemnity if the plants have greater than zero value after damage has occurred). The statement 

further provides that “If your nursery catalog/price list is not updated on an annual basis, you 

must submit a supplement to the nursery catalog/price list on or before the sales closing date.” 

The purpose of this statement is not clear since section 6(b) of the Crop Provisions requires the 

insured to submit “...two copies of your most recent wholesale catalogs or price lists ... on or 

before the sales closing date for each crop year following the year of application.” The statement 

further provides that if the omitted plants were acquired after the PIVR was submitted for the 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

65

crop year, a revised PIVR and price list must be submitted. However, the statement does not 

clarify if the revised PIVR is in addition to the two revised PIVR allowed for the crop year. This 

could be important if, for example, the insured had submitted two revised PIVR before the 

omitted plants were discovered. The statement requires a revised PIVR (must be submitted). 

The section dealing with omitted plants further states that plants currently in inventory but that 

are not ready for sale and are for which a price is not published must be reported on a revised 

PIVR along with a supplement to the catalog/price list. Again, there is no indication as to 

whether this is in addition to the two allowable revisions. The requirements of a price list from 

the Crop Provisions (section 6(k)) are repeated with the exception of two changes: instead of 

being provided to customers the price list must be intended for use in the sale of the plants, and 

the plant size but not the container size is required. 

The statement further repeats the limitation of section 6(g)(4) of the Crop Provisions but does not 

contain the right of the AIP to reject the proposed increase in inventory value. 

The next special provision is table of data for FCIC container sizes and volumes. This 

information duplicates data contained in the EPL PPS.51

 There is at least one difference between 

the Special Provisions and the EPL PPS. For FCIC Size Name Pot, the Special Provisions list a 

minimum volume of 0.08 gallon whereas the EPL PPS lists a volume of 0.038 gallon. The 

Contractor believes the EPL PPS is incorrect since this is the only volume entry to three 

decimals. The data have been contained in the Special Provisions since the 2000 crop year. The 

Contractor did not verify the first year the information is contained in the EPL PPS. It may be 

that the information first was included in the Special Provisions to correct the error. At the very 

least, the Special Provisions should state the information is in lieu of the information in the EPL 

PPS if this is the case. 

The next special provision is inserted between terms of the provision dealing with the over-report 

factor and a description of the impact of that factor. The inserted provision modifies sections 

6(c)(3) and 6(f)(3) as follows: 

a. The insured is made responsible for paying premium if documentation to support the 

PIVR is not provided when documentation is requested. The Crop Provisions only deny 

insurance for such units. 

b. Inadequate documentation does not result in denial of insurance as stated in the Crop 

Provisions. Under the Special Provision, this condition results in reduction of the 

indemnity instead. The special provision does not describe how the indemnity is to be 

reduced. 

The next special provision appears to be in lieu of section 6(i) of the Crop Provisions although 

this is not stated. Section 6(i) states that failure to report the full value of the basic unit will 

result in a reduction of claim in accordance with section 12(d) (reduction by the under-report 

factor). The special provision modifies this to state that the value of unreported plants will be 

calculated separately and then prorated to the reported insured plants to determine Field Market 

Value A (under-report situations only). The purpose of this step with regard to unreported plants 

 

51 Navigation: file, select Volume Calculator, select Round or Rectangular, select Size Definitions. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

66

in a basic unit is unclear since Field Market Value A is defined as the value of all insurable 

plants in the unit prior to the loss. The result is the same whether Field Market Value A is 

determined for all insurable plants in the unit (reported and unreported) or whether the value of 

the unreported plants is allocated pro-rata to the reported plants. The extra complicating step 

does not change the determination of Field Market Value A. The special provision further states 

the unreported plants will be listed as undamaged in the Appraisal Worksheet. The Contractor 

interprets this to mean the plants will be included in Field Market Value B at the price listed in 

the EPL PPS. The language in the Special Provisions is information that likely communicates 

little to the insured. 

This special provision continues to state that a revised PIVR and catalog/price list must be 

submitted if the plants were acquired after submitting the original PIVR for the crop year. 

Again, there is no indication if this requirement is in addition to the two allowed revisions. The 

30-day delay in insurance attachment that is part of the Crop Provisions is repeated. 

The next special provision deals with prohibited plants, which are any plant a state or county 

classifies as illegal to grow or sell in a county. Such plants may be listed in the EPL PPS but 

may be considered invasive in some parts of the country. The Contractor believes this provision 

more properly belongs under section 8 (Insured Crop and Plants) of the Crop Provisions. The 

provision continues with a header entitled “Required PIVR Revisions” which states that, if such 

plants are determined to be present, “...we will reduce the inventory value of any affected unit 

by the lesser of the value of the prohibited plants or the maximum amount possible that will not 

leave the under-report factor for the unit below 1.00.” Nothing in the provision requires the 

insured to file a revised PIVR although these words are the header for the provision. The 

provision does not contain a disclaimer that the reduction of inventory value will occur only if 

the plants have been included for determining the basic unit value. 

As stated earlier in this review, the definitions of liners and standard nursery containers are 

modified in the Special Provisions. This provision has a header of “liners” but refers to both 

liners and standard nursery containers. There is an addition to the definition of standard nursery 

container that follows information for determining damage to certain plants. This additional part 

of the definition should be included with the other parts of the definition so the user does not 

need to refer to multiple areas of the Special Provisions to obtain needed information. 

In general, the Special Provisions can be better organized and more clearly written. Duplications 

with other parts of the policy should be avoided. 

Review of the Nursery Crop Insurance Underwriting Guide (FCIC 24090-1 (02-2011)) 

This section of the evaluation considers the Underwriting Guide in accordance with the 

requirements of the Program Evaluation Guide. Comments and recommendations made by the 

Contractor with respect to the Crop Provisions, the various Endorsements, and the Special 

Provisions are incorporated by reference and will not be discussed further in this section. 

The material in the Guide has brackets around certain material even though there is no apparent 

need for such punctuation. The instances principally or only involve references to sections of the 

Crop Provisions, etc. As an example, “Refer to [Section 11(C)(2)]for the insurable plant 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

67

types...” appears in one part of the document. This appears to be related to editing of the 

document that was not removed for issuance. The Contractor notes this condition and will not 

flag every instance in which it occurs. 

Section 1 Purpose and Objective 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 2 Cancellation 

The Contractor has no comments regarding this section. 

Section 3 Definitions 

Crop Inventory Valuation Report – The definition is limited to a document created using the 

FCIC Nursery Inventory Software. The Crop Provisions require only that documentation be 

provided. The definition should contain a clause stating “or equivalent document” following the 

words Nursery Inventory Software. 

Hardiness Zone Designations – The definition references Appendix A of the EPL. This 

information may be in Appendix A of a hard copy of the document. The electronic version does 

not have an Appendix A although the information is contained in the software. 

Omitted Plant – The definition does not include the condition wherein a plant is in the 

inventory, is listed on the catalog/price list, but no price is contained on the catalog/price list. 

See Special Provisions for this description. 

Storage Keys – The definition references Appendix B of the EPL. This information may be in 

Appendix B of a hard copy of the document. The electronic version does not have an Appendix 

B although the information is contained in the software. 

Section 4 Availability 

The Crop Provisions define a nursery as “A business enterprise that grows the nursery plants and 

derives at least 50 percent of its gross income from the wholesale marketing of such plants.” The 

term “gross income” typically means the total of income from all sources. The last paragraph of 

section 4 states “Income from other operations including landscaping, chemical sales, other 

nursery related products, production of other crops or livestock or any other business enterprise 

not related to the nursery inventory are not to be included in this calculation.” This is the 

denominator for determining compliance with the 50 percent requirement. The definition of 

nursery accordingly should read “A business enterprise that grows nursery plants and for which 

at least 50 percent of its gross income from sales of plants is derived from transactions in the 

wholesale market. Income from ancillary services such as landscaping (not including associated 

sales of plants), sales of chemicals, of other nursery products, of other crops or livestock, or of 

any other product or commodity shall not be considered to be part of the gross income from sales 

of plants.” 

Section 5 Important Dates 

The last paragraph under section 5E states that “The 30-day waiting period does not include the 

date the required documentation is submitted or the date insurance attaches.” The Crop 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

68

Provisions state “... insurance will not attach until 30 days after all such documents have been 

received...” If the intent is that 30 full days must elapse after the documentation has been 

received, the Crop Provisions should state this condition clearly. The condition would be more 

clearly stated if worded “insurance will not attach until the 31st day after receipt...” 

The paragraph under section 5F(1)(c) is indented as though it applies only to that subsection. It 

also applies to (b). 

The paragraph states “The rate used to calculate premium will be the rate effective on the last 

date of the month.” This is incorrect. The premium rate applies to the entire year. Premium for 

less than a year is prorated using the monthly proration factors. 

Section 5F(2) states the administrative fee is due for each crop/practice. The Crop Provisions 

state “An administrative fee ... will be owed for each practice insured.” 

Section 5G states that insureds must request a transfer of a policy to a different AIP before the 

cancellation date. A transfer must be completed on or before that date, not just requested. 

Section 5G further states “Any policy transferred after the SCD and prior to the cancellation date 

must have the same coverage levels, plant types, etc., that were effective on the SCD” (emphasis 

added). The Contractor earlier noted that several provisions in the Crop Provisions were not 

appropriate because coverage levels are chosen by practice, not plant type. Section 3(c)(1)(iv) 

allows a new plant type to be reported on a revised PIVR. Hence, there seems to no basis to 

restrict the transferred policy to the same plant types as were insured the previous year. What is 

not clearly stated in the Crop Provisions is whether a new practice can be added on a revised 

PIVR (see comments regarding the Crop Provisions, section 3). 

Section 6 Coverage Levels 

Section 6C(1) states that only one coverage level may be elected for each basic unit. Coverage 

levels must be elected by practice, which can be a basic unit. However, basic units also may be 

established by plant type. 

Section 6(c)(2) states the price percentage is 55 percent for CAT coverage. However, the Crop 

Provisions do not define CAT coverage in any specific detail other than in section 12(f)(2) 

wherein the amount of a loss is multiplied by 0.55 to determine the indemnity for CAT coverage. 

The Contractor recommended alternative language for section 7(a) of the Crop Provisions for 

determining the amount of premium. 

Section 7 Basis of Coverage 

Section 7A(2)(a) states the EPL PPS establishes the maximum insurable plant prices. This is 

true only if the Nursery Grower’s Plant Price Endorsement is not elected. 

Section 7A(2)(c) and (e) state the EPL PPS assigns insurable hardiness zones. The defined term 

is hardiness zone designations. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

69

Section 7B(1), in the final paragraph, states that an application from a new insured will be 

rejected if the catalog or price list is not submitted with the application. The Crop Provisions do 

not contain this requirement. 

Section 7B(2)(a) states the catalog or price list must be neat. This adjective is not contained in 

the Crop Provisions. 

Section 7B(3) does not contain a date by which the described actions must be taken. 

Section 7B(6) is not clear. First, it seems to infer the PIVR may be updated when a seasonal 

catalog/price list is issued. For example, on May 1, 2012, the insured has a catalog for spring 

2012 (expires May 2012) and one for fall/winter 2012-2013. The inference is that the PIVR may 

be updated when a catalog for spring 2013 is issued. However, the paragraph then states “The 

nursery catalog or price list in effect for the crop year on the date insurance attaches (for new 

insureds) or May 1 prior to the start of the crop year (for carryover insureds) will be used for 

purposes of the revised PIVR or Peak Inventory Endorsement.” The spring 2012 catalog is not 

in effect on the date insurance attaches. 

Section 7C(10)(a) states that a plant valued on the EPL PPS under both the high/wide and caliper 

measurement systems “may be valued ...” The Special Provisions state that the plant “will be 

valued ....” 

Section 8 Insurable Plants 

Section 8(b) states that, in the event of a failure or loss of the irrigation equipment due to an 

uninsured cause of loss, “coverage will be denied.” The appropriate terminology is that an 

uninsured cause of loss appraisal will be performed. Coverage continues to exist for any other 

insured cause of loss. 

The ordering of the text in section 8C(1) needs improvement. It starts by stating a size between 

listed sizes is rounded with the exception of (a), then moves to (b) which refers to larger sizes. It 

should be organized as (1) Field grown plant sizes are listed on the Base Price Table of the EPL 

PPS. (a) Plants smaller than the smallest size listed are not insurable (do not round up). (b) 

Plants with a size between the listed sizes are rounded to the nearest size to determine the price. 

(c) Plants larger than the largest size listed ... 

Section 8H contains a listing of insurable plants and plant types. However, it is not complete. 

For example, the requirement of the Crop Provisions that the plants “...meet all the requirements 

for insurability ...” is not stated. Other requirements imposed by the Crop Provisions also are 

omitted. The list either should be complete or the user should be referred to the Crop Provisions. 

Section 9 Cause of Loss Limitations 

Section 9B states the insurable plants grown without over-winterization protection are insured 

for all causes of loss except cold temperatures. This should state plants grown without the 

appropriate over-winterization protection are insured. The insured might provide protection but 

the protection does not meet the minimum requirements of the EPL PPS.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

70

The list of uninsured conditions contained in the Crop Provisions is much more extensive than 

the information contained in the Guide. The benefit of this section is that it includes information 

from the Special Provisions. But, since the user is referred to the Crop Provisions for more 

information about uninsurable causes of loss, the Contractor recommends this section either be 

expanded to be inclusive of the Crop Provisions or be limited to the content from the Special 

Provisions with a referral to the Crop Provisions for the remaining uninsurable causes of loss. 

Section 10 Conditions of Acceptance 

Section 10 essentially sets forth an inspection and review protocol for nurseries and the 

documentation behind the PIVR. Although the Crop Provisions contain reference to only one 

mandatory inspection (when a revised PIVR increases liability by more than 50 percent), the 

Guide imposes multiple required inspections. The section also sets forth standards a nursery 

must meet before insurance will be accepted. In the review of the Crop Provisions, the 

Contractor noted an absence of a section for Insurable Nurseries that would parallel the Insurable 

Acreage section of most policies. 

Section 11 Unit Division 

The Contractor has no comments on this section. 

Section 12 Amount of Insurance 

The lead information for the section lists all uses of the amount of insurance except 

determination of the amount of premium. 

Section 12A states “For liners, the amount of insurance is also multiplied by the survival factor 

shown on the Special Provisions of Insurance.” The Contractor noted the absence of the survival 

factor for certain calculations and recommended that section 6 of the Crop Provisions be 

amended to include a provision that the value of liners would be multiplied by the survival factor 

for determining the basic unit value reported on that document. The statement in section 12A of 

the Guide could be misinterpreted since only the value of the liners that is included on the PIVR 

is multiplied by the survival factor. 

Section 12C has duplicative information included. The insured is required to list the total value 

of all plants by plant type on the PIVR regardless of whether a policy level basic unit is elected 

or basic units by plant type are elected. Thus, the calculation of premium is the same regardless 

of the choice of unit structure. The sentence regarding total value of liners is not a part of 

premium calculations. 

Section 13 Penalties for Misreporting 

Section 13A states the reported inventory value must at least equal the actual inventory value at 

the time of loss determination. In the comments regarding the Crop Provisions, the Contractor 

noted that this document does not contain any specific guidance regarding the basis for the 

inventory value to report. Is the inventory value to be based on the plants and sizes that exist on 

the sales closing date, or is it to be based on the expected sizes at the time of sale? 

The terms defined in the Crop Provisions should be used in the Guide. Rather than state “value 

of the inventory at the time of loss determination,” the Guide should use the term Field Market 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

71

Value A. At the very least, this term should be in parentheses following the word determination. 

As stated, the description is very imprecise. Does value of the inventory at the time of loss 

determination refer to Field Market Value A or to Field Market Value B? Both determinations 

are made at the time of loss adjustment. 

Section 13C contains language relating to the pro-rata allocation of the value of unreported 

plants. As the Contractor noted earlier, Field Market Value A is defined as the value of 

undamaged insurable plants prior to the loss, not the value of undamaged insured plants. The 

total of Field Market Value A is the same if the value of all insurable plants is determined or 

whether the value of unreported insurable plants is determined separately and allocated pro-rata 

to the reported plants. 

Section 14 PIVR 

Section 14C(2) states “The PIVR must be reflective of the actual inventory on date submitted.” 

The Crop Provisions only limit the PIVR to 110 percent of actual inventory for CAT coverage. 

There is no condition stated for accuracy of the PIVR as of a specific date for additional 

coverage stated in the Crop Provisions. The Contractor noted this condition earlier. 

Section 15 Written Agreements for Unlisted Plants 

Section 15A(2) describes a condition that does not require a written agreement. Hence, it is 

misplaced. 

Section 16 Peak Inventory Endorsement 

The Contractor has no comments on this section. 

Section 17 Nursery Grower’s Price Endorsement 

The Contractor has no comments on this section. 

Section 18 Rehabilitation Endorsement 

Section 18A does not state the endorsement is continuous. 

Section 18C states the maximum rehabilitation payment per loss occurrence. It does not state the 

maximum payment for a crop year. 

Section 19 Deductibles 

The Contractor has no comments on this section. 

Exhibit 1 PIVR 

REPORTING BY PRACTICE – For CAT only – The text states “In addition to reporting the 

inventory values for each plant type, CAT policies must report for each practice insured ...” 

This should be worded to pertain to policies that chose the CAT level of protection for a practice. 

A policy may have additional protection for one practice and CAT for the other. 

REPORTING BY BASIC UNIT on page 47 – The text states “The survival factor if the basic 

unit is liners multiplied by...” If the insured chooses basic unit by share or chooses CAT for the 

practice, liners will be one line entry for the basic unit, it will not constitute the basic unit. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

72

REPORTING BY BASIC UNIT on page 47 – The text states “The Coverage Level (one level 

per crop/county) multiplied by...” This appears to be a reference to the column labeled 

“Coverage Level” on the form. Regardless, the parenthetical expression applies only to CAT or 

to basic units by share. 

REPORTING BY BASIC UNIT on page 47 – The instructions appear to be an agglomeration of 

original PIVR and revised PIVR with little or no distinguishing information. 

UNDERSTANDING BY INSURED on page 48 – The purpose of this information is not clear. 

It does not appear on the form in this format. Some of this language is on the form, some is not. 

EXAMPLE INVENTORY RECORD SUBMITTED on page 48 – The purpose of this statement 

is not clear. There is no inventory record. 

EXAMPLE: Reporting plant inventory values under basic units by share on page 48 – Some 

data are included under this heading. However, the examples omit the 1.00 price factor for 

additional coverage. The examples would have greater benefit if these were included on a 

completed form. In addition, an example of a completed form for basic units by plant type 

would be useful. 

Exhibit 2 – Peak Inventory Endorsement 

Statement on page 52: “No more than one endorsement may be purchased for each basic unit in 

a crop year unless a loss occurred and the loss was to inventory covered by the Peak Inventory 

Value Report.” This statement does not contain the condition that the nursery must have been 

restocked. 

Statement on page 53: “Peak Inventory Coverage Commencement Date – (May be any date 

within the crop year selected by the insured.) This will be date coverage begins. Statement does 

not include limitation that this date must be at least the 31st day after the form has been received 

by the AIP. 

Exhibit 3 – Nursery Underwriting Inspection Report 

A high degree of knowledge of the nursery business is required to adequately complete this 

report. 

Exhibit 4 – Minimum and Maximum Plant Sizes by Plant Type 

The Contractor has no comments on this Exhibit. 

Exhibit 5 – FCIC Container Sizes 

The Exhibit reproduces information contained in the EPL PPS.

Exhibit 6 Nursery Catalog / Price List Checklist 

The Checklist is a form for the AIP reviewer to document that the standards contained in section 

6(k) of the Crop Provisions are met. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

73

Review of the Nursery Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook (FCIC-25750)(1-2011) 

Comments and recommendations made by the Contractor with respect to the Crop Provisions, 

the Endorsements, and the Underwriting Guide are incorporated by reference. 

Section 1 Introduction 

The Contractor has no comments. 

Section 2B(4) Definitions 

Amount of Insurance – The definition provided herein differs from both the Crop Provisions 

and the Underwriting Guide. 

Marketable – The definition expands the original definition contained in the Crop Provisions by 

adding a definition of “market.” The insured has no access to this information. The information 

also is not contained in the Underwriting Guide. 

Nursery – The Underwriting Guide expands on the income to count in determining the 50 

percent threshold. 

Section 3 Insurance Contract Information 

Section 3A(2) contains the statement “If the insured selects basic units by plant type and submits 

a revised PIVR to add a new plant type basic unit that was not reported on the initial PIVR, the 

revised PIVR is not considered one of the two allowable revisions.” This expands on the Crop 

Provisions. It also is not contained in the Underwriting Guide. The LASH is not part of the 

policy as defined by the Basic Provisions. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to use it to establish 

policy terms. The Contractor noted earlier that numerous references to mandatory revisions of 

the PIVR are contained in the policy materials but there was no indication whether these were 

constrained by the policy language restricting the number of PIVR revisions. 

Section 3A(3) does not mention the right of the insured to submit an electronic version of the 

catalog or price lists as authorized by the Underwriting Guide. 

Section 3B(7) states “(It is not practical if the cost of rehabilitation is greater than the value of 

the plant prior to being damaged).” The Rehabilitation Endorsement and the Underwriting 

Guide state “(It is not practical if the costs of rehabilitation are greater than the value of the 

plant).” The LASH is not part of the policy as defined by the Basic Provisions. Accordingly, it 

is not appropriate to use it to establish policy terms. Admittedly, the terminology in the 

Rehabilitation Endorsement is vague and ambiguous. What value? What value when? Suppose 

a plant has a market value of $10 prior to loss and an appraised value of $5 after loss. According 

to the LASH, if the cost of rehabilitation exceeds $10, it is not practical to rehabilitate. 

However, incurring a cost of $10 to rehabilitate a $10 plant seems unreasonable when the 

indemnity would be, at most, $2.50.52

 Moreover, according to section 2(d)(2) of the 

Rehabilitation Endorsement, the maximum rehabilitation payment is 7.5 percent of the value, 

based on insurable plant prices determined in accordance with section 6 of the Crop Provisions, 

of the plants that were rehabilitated. Suppose the basic unit consists of 10,000 plants worth $10 

 

52 Assuming a 75 percent coverage level. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

74

each determined in accordance with Section 6. The maximum rehabilitation payment is $7,500 

(7.5 percent of $100,000) multiplied by coverage level, or a maximum of $0.5625 per plant. 

Since the policy limits the maximum payment to such a small amount, it seems unreasonable to 

state that $10 per plant is a reasonable amount to determine practicability of rehabilitation. 

Section 3C(1) states in several places that the under-report factor contained in the Crop 

Provisions is used in determining the amount of the maximum rehabilitation payment. The 

Rehabilitation Endorsement more correctly states that the under-report factor described in the 

Crop Provisions is used. 

Section 3D(2) states that the EPL PPS software cannot be used to create the “Rehabilitation 

Payment Report.” No such report is described in the LASH or any other documents for the 

Nursery Program. The statement may be referring to the Rehabilitation Payment Worksheet 

depicted on page 17 of the LASH. 

Section 4E does not contain a sub-section detailing the standards that apply to the form.53

Section 4E Item 4 directs the loss adjuster to enter the basic unit number from the PIVR. The 

instruction normally directs entry of this information “after it is verified to be correct.” 

Section 4E Item 6 refers to Peak Inventory Value Report(s). Only one Peak Report can be in 

effect at any time. 

Section 4E Item 11 references adjustment of the previous losses by the over-report factor. This 

variable is not referenced in section 4C of the LASH (Maximum Rehabilitation Payment) or in 

the Rehabilitation Endorsement. Both of these citations reference only the under-report factor. 

In addition, the Special Provisions for 2012 do not contain references to adjusting previous 

losses by the over-report factor for the purpose of establishing the maximum rehabilitation 

payment. 

Section 4E Item 11 directs the loss adjuster to enter the under-report factor for the unit which is 

defined as the Reported Basic Unit Value minus previous losses adjusted for any under-report 

factor divided by Fair Market Value A. The term Reported Basic Unit Value appears to refer to 

Reported Basic Unit Amount, which is an entry in Item 6. The form does not contain the 

information related to previous losses or previous under-report factors. 

The Contractor completed the form on page 17 and found the entries to be correct. 

Section 5 Peak Inventory Value Report Information 

The Contractor has no comments on this section. 

Section 6 Nursery Grower’s Price Endorsement Information 

The Contractor has no comments on this section. 

 

53 The Contractor notes that Appraisal Worksheets and other documents illustrated in other Loss Adjustment Standards 

Handbooks have a section detailing the form standards that apply to each of the forms used in determining the amount of an 

appraisal or any payment. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

75

Section 7 Nursery Appraisals 

Section 7A(1) contains three duties that are identified as being “in addition to” those duties 

enumerated by Section 14 of the Basic Provisions. All three are enumerated in the Basic 

Provisions – section 14(a)(1), 14(a)(2), and 14(a)(4). Section 14(a)(4) has more specific duties 

than those identified in the LASH. 

Section 7A(2) contains restrictions upon the insured with regard to any damaged plants. These 

restrictions are the same as those contained in section 14(b) of the Basic Provisions. 

Section 7D(1) first states: “When a covered loss occurs, an inventory must be conducted of the 

damaged and undamaged plants to determine the amount of the loss. All plants within the 

damaged basic unit must be accounted for.” It also states: “If the number or appropriate value 

of UNDAMAGED plants is not known or is questionable at the time of the loss, they must also 

be inventoried.” However, the first two sentences already state that all plants, damaged or 

undamaged, must be inventoried. The last sentence only serves to confuse. 

Section 7G(8) describes a process for pro-rating the value of unreported plants to the value of 

reported plants. The Contractor earlier observed that the result of this pro-rata allocation is the 

same as that obtained by including all plants, reported and unreported, in the determination of 

FMV A. The definition of FMV A states it is the value of undamaged insurable plants. The 

plants are insurable even if not reported. The section then proceeds to an example which 

allocates the value of unreported plants in one basic unit pro-rata to another basic unit. This 

example is appropriate if the entire unit were unreported and is consistent with normal loss 

procedures in that case. 

Sections 7H(3) and (4) essentially state the same thing but include a conflict. Both state the 

value of a damaged plant remains at the appraised value until the end of the recovery period. 

This treatment is not included in the definitions of Field Market Values A and B. Both 

definitions state the value of a plant is the lower of the EPL PPS or the catalog (in absence of 

NGPE). Subsection (3) states the value of the plant never changes during the recovery period, 

while (4) states it may be reduced further by subsequent damage. 

Section 7H(5) contains the statement: “The FMV-A value for the 3-gallon Hibiscus Syriacus 

‘Morning Star’ price for the February 1st loss event is $5.74, which is equal to the previous 

FMV-B remaining value price.” As noted previously, this treatment is not consistent with the 

definition of Field Market Value A.

Section 9C Item 17b contains the statement: “If more than one price is listed in EPL PPS for the 

same plant (e.g., a price by both caliper and height), refer to the SP and the Nursery 

Underwriting Guide for determining which price and size entry to use.” Section 7E of the LASH 

contains detailed instructions for determining the applicable price. 

Section 11E Item 18c contains a statement that the basic unit liability is the amount prior to 

reduction for price election percentage. Section 3(c) of the Crop Provisions states the price 

election percentage will be 100 percent. The premium is defined as the amount of insurance 

multiplied by a premium rate and any adjustment factors. Amount of insurance is defined as the 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

76

value from the PIVR multiplied by the coverage level percent. The indemnity (Section 12) is 

calculated at the full amount for 50 percent coverage and then reduced 45 percent in step 

12(f)(2). 

Summary 

The nursery crop program is complex and seemingly convoluted. There are a number of 

contradictions and omissions within and among documents. Policy terms are included in 

documents that are not part of the contract as defined by the Basic Provisions. The Crop 

Provisions thus do not adequately establish the obligations of the insured and the insured does 

not have access to the information that establishes those obligations. For example, the LASH 

establishes an obligation that the basic unit value as documented on the PIVR will equal the 

actual value of the inventory on the date the PIVR is filed; the Crop Provisions establish this 

obligation only for CAT coverage. The Crop Provisions state that the insured may file not more 

than two revised PIVR; the LASH states that certain revisions are not considered to be included 

in the two allowable revisions. There are several other instances of lack of clarity in the Crop 

Provisions. If this program is continued, a substantial revision of the Crop Provisions should be 

undertaken to provide greater clarity so the obligations of the insured are better defined. Given 

the potential litigation exposure the current inconsistencies may permit, the Contractor believes 

revisions merit a high priority. 

VI.B. Policy File Review 

The Contractor was provided access to a sample of randomly selected files for policies covered 

under the Nursery Program. The policies represented production insured in California, Florida, 

Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas during the 2010 crop year. Not surprisingly, the 

majority of the files documented insurance of production in Florida. Each file was carefully 

examined for content, structure, and consistency with Nursery Program underwriting rules. Nine 

files contained useful information for review. One file contained a letter indicating the policy 

was no longer active and no materials were available for the 2010 crop year. The longest policy 

file incorporated more than 400 pages of documentation. The typical file length was closer to 50 

pages. 

Most of the files the Contractor reviewed documented coverage at the CAT level. Insurance 

documents for operations with only container production, only field-grown production, and with 

both practices were reviewed. It was interesting to note when both practices were documented 

for a single operation, the proportions of production managed under each practice were not 

balanced (i.e., the production was distributed with 99 percent field grown production and 1 

percent containerized production or 99 percent containerized production and 1 percent field 

grown production). 

Files reviewed documented operations with as few as a single insurable type and as many as 14 

insurable types. Most of the catalogues were for the 2009 calendar year with a few for 2010. 

There was one 2011 catalogue apparently misfiled with the 2010 policy materials. The 

operations whose insurance documents were reviewed had catalogues as short as a single page (2 

operations with 10 and 22 plant variety/size entries, but with total plant inventories between $2 

million and $5 million) and as long as 52 pages (approximately 3,200 plant variety/size entries 

with a total plant inventory value of almost $23 million). 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

77

Documentation of onsite inspections was included in half of the policy files. The remaining 

policies appeared to be continuing policies and documentation of the management practices may 

have been incorporated into the prior years’ files. Of the maps and/or aerial photographs 

documenting the nursery locations, several were on a scale that limited their utility in identifying 

the location and structure of the nursery. These appear to have been downloaded from internet 

mapping sites. In the copies provided to the Contractor, the precise location and boundaries of 

the nursery was not evident. 

The Contractor observed occasional updates on policy documents. Some of these changes were 

not initialed by the insured, as required under the CIH. Generally these updates were changes 

made in pen to printed documents. It seems likely these changes were made prior to the insured 

signing the document; while this approach may reflect an effort by the agent to limit the 

paperwork burden on the insured, it should be avoided. There is a risk to not carefully 

documenting the acceptance of the change by the insured. 

The Contractor was pleased to note one AIP had caught an improper Federal tax ID in a policy 

file (the nursery was incorporated with multiple owners, but an individual Social Security 

number had been provided by the insured and accepted by the agent/agency). The Contractor 

also approved the careful documentation of uninsured damage in a second policy file. 

The largest policy had several issues of concern. The policy materials included an enterprise unit 

endorsement. The policy (or policies) had been transferred between two AIP’s. There were 

nurseries in five counties. One AIP managed the insurance as five separate policies, while the 

second treated the production as a single operation. This was further complicated because one of 

the locations was identified as both a nursery and a distribution center. Therefore, it appeared 

harvested production was being moved between locations and was being treated as insurable 

following the move. 

In one file, damaged plants were listed in the Crop Inventory Valuation Report (CIVR). The 

price for these plants was the same as that listed for the variety/size in the producer’s catalogue. 

It appeared that either the CIVR value was too high or the producer was selling damaged 

merchandise without identifying it as such. The Contractor believed this price attribution should 

have had better documentation in the policy file. 

Finally, in one policy file that included documentation of an adjusted claim, a set of sales 

receipts was used to account for discrepancies in the PIVR inventory and the FMV A inventory. 

Some of the receipts included no address or phone number for the purchaser of the plants; it 

appears “regular” customers whose address and phone number were known to the seller were 

identified on the receipt by name only. This illustrates an inconsistency between what is 

reasonable behavior for the business (treating well known customers familiarly) and what is 

required for the insurance (full documentation of the identity, address, and contact information of 

purchasers of all inventory that has left the premises). In the case of a large operation, it is 

possible that hundreds or perhaps even thousands of receipts might be required to document sold 

inventory. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

78

The sample of policy files provided to the Contractor by RMA demonstrates an appropriate level 

of rigor in meeting the complex record-keeping requirements of the Nursery Program. While 

there are occasionally issues that merit attention, these issues do not appear to be either systemic 

or wide-spread. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

79

SECTION VII. UNPUBLISHED DATA REPORT 

This section of the evaluation report addresses the requirement that: 

“The seventh section of the report shall contain the results of the Unpublished 

Data Report findings detailing the statistical analysis of the performance of the 

crop program.”

54

The body of the report contains a high-level summary of the Summary of Business (SOB) data. 

Detailed data are contained on a disc that accompanies this evaluation. This section further 

incorporates a high-level review of the rating approach used for the Nursery Program. 

VII.A. Insurance Experience 

This section includes findings detailing the statistical analysis of the performance of the crop 

program as described in the Program Evaluation Handbook: 

“The Insurance Experience tables based on the Summary of Business (SOB) 

data... reveal trends, patterns and unique circumstances that should be analyzed 

further. The data, e.g. numbers of insurance policies, participation, liabilities, 

premiums, indemnities, and loss ratios should be analyzed over ...and further 

analyzed if changes were made to the program during the evaluation period. 

Patterns of losses should be analyzed further, including causes of loss and 

differences between counties or regions. Similarly, differences in participation, 

buy up rates, and loss ratios between counties, or regions and states, or between 

different sizes of policy units should be determined and explanations pursued. 

Recent experience should be compared to analogous data for other crop policies 

to identify anomalies, if any. Participation in the insurance program by type and 

level (CAT, RBUP) should be analyzed.”

55

Aggregate Experience 1999-2011 

Nursery constitutes a small part of the total crop insurance program for all insurance parameters 

but one: its share of the total liability. Between 1999 and 2010, nursery averaged 6 percent of 

the total program liability, but only 0.3 percent of policies earning premium, 0.2 percent of units 

earning premium, and 1.2 percent of premiums earned. Nursery’s share of total premium was 

much lower than its share of total liability because the average earned premium rate was so much 

lower – only about one-fifth of the average earned premium rate for all other crops. This was 

due to two factors: a very high percentage of business at the CAT level of coverage and a much 

lower overall premium rate structure, further exacerbated by the lack of availability of optional 

units, which garner higher premiums. 

Nursery also had a very small share of the indemnities paid by the crop insurance program in 

total. Less than 0.1 percent of policies and units earning premium were indemnified. Nursery 

indemnities constituted 1.6 percent of all indemnities paid by the program between 1999 and 

2010. 

 

54 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 12. 

55 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 15. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

80

Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain the summary of business data for all nursery practices, container 

grown nursery practice, and field grown nursery practice, respectively.56

 These data represent all 

years of experience since the Crop Provisions were revised to include both practices. 

 

56 A small amount of the limited level of coverage is included in the total for additional coverage. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

81

Table 4. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Type for All Practices Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

Coverage Type

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium Rate Loss Ratio Loss Cost Ratio

Additional 13,935 36,672 2,342 6,020 9,925,789 348,294 603,211 0.035 1.732 0.061

CAT 32,458 34,956 589 593 31,188,583 415,653 127,371 0.013 0.306 0.004

Total 46,393 71,628 2,931 6,613 41,114,371 763,946 730,583 0.019 0.956 0.018

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Table 5. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Type for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

Coverage Type

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified Units Indemnified Liability (1,000 dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss 

Ratio

Loss 

Cost 

Ratio

Additional 11,124 28,525 1,880 4,909 6,836,405 263,193 403,871 0.038 1.535 0.059

CAT 24,557 25,296 306 307 17,718,228 265,069 53,048 0.015 0.200 0.003

Total 35,681 53,821 2,186 5,216 24,554,633 528,261 456,919 0.022 0.865 0.019

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Table 6. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Type for Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

Coverage Type

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

Additional 5,491 9,753 719 1,159 3,089,384 85,101 199,340 0.028 2.342 0.065

CAT 14,690 15,120 324 327 13,470,354 150,584 74,323 0.011 0.494 0.006

Total 20,181 24,873 1,043 1,486 16,559,739 235,685 273,664 0.014 1.161 0.017

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

82

Most (approximately 70 percent) of policies earning premium chose the CAT level of coverage. 

These results are about the same for both container and field grown practices. The container 

practice was the most frequently insured practice, with nearly 36,000 policy-years of 

experience.57

 The loss ratio (dollar weighted) was less than 1.00 for the entire program, but 

varied between the two practices. The loss ratio for the field grown practice was over 1.00. 

The average earned premium rate was lowest for the field grown practice even though it had the 

worst experience for this period. The loss cost ratio of additional coverage for field grown 

practice was only marginally higher than for container practice, but the earned premium rate was 

substantially lower, causing a higher loss ratio for the field grown practice. It is worth noting the 

additional coverage has had relatively high loss ratios under both practices. 

The reader may notice that the sum of the counts of policies and units in Tables 5 and 6 exceed 

the numbers contained in Table 4. This occurs because the practices are separately insurable – 

one practice may be insured and the other not insured, both may be insured with additional 

coverage or CAT coverage, or one may be insured with CAT coverage and the other with 

additional coverage, or the nursery may have only one practice. Policies and units are separately 

counted according to the insured practice in the two detailed tables but are counted at the 

aggregate level for the summary table. Dollar amounts do sum to the total. 

Liability per policy was about one-third larger for CAT policies even though the coverage level 

is lower than for additional coverage policies along with a substantially lower percentage of the 

price.58

 Said another way, the larger the nursery operation, the greater the probability the 

insurance was at the CAT level. Consistent with most other crops and the aggregate 

performance of the crop insurance program, the loss ratio and loss cost ratio for CAT policies 

was only a small percentage of the equivalent parameters for additional coverage. Liability, 

premium, and indemnity per policy and per unit are included in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. 

 

57 The sum of the policies insured and with a loss is greater than the total included in Table 4 because some policies insured both 

container and field grown practice. Hence, those policies are counted only once in the aggregate but are counted separately by 

practice. 

58 Although the insurance prices are not reduced to 55 percent as is the case with other crops, the total liability at the 50 percent 

coverage level is reduced by 45 percent for CAT protection. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

83

Table 7. Liability, Premium, and Indemnity per Policy Earning Premium Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Coverage Type

All Practices Container Practice Field Grown Practice

Liability Premium Indemnity Liability Premium Indemnity Liability Premium Indemnity

(1,000 dollars)

Additional 712.3 25.0 43.3 614.6 23.7 36.3 562.6 15.5 36.3

CAT 960.9 12.8 3.9 721.5 10.8 2.2 917.0 10.3 5.1

Total 886.2 16.5 15.7 688.2 14.8 12.8 820.6 11.7 13.6

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Table 8. Liability, Premium, and Indemnity per Unit Earning Premium Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Coverage Type

All Practices Container Practice Field Grown Practice

Liability Premium Indemnity Liability Premium Indemnity Liability Premium Indemnity

(1,000 dollars)

Additional 270.7 9.5 16.4 239.7 9.2 14.2 316.8 8.7 20.4

CAT 892.2 11.9 3.6 700.4 10.5 2.1 890.9 10.0 4.9

Total 574.0 10.7 10.2 456.2 9.8 8.5 665.8 9.5 11.0

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

84

Table 9 provides an overview of the concentration of business for additional coverage, CAT, and 

combined by year. The volume of business peaked in 2007 in terms of policies and units earning 

premium and liability. Business has been decreasing since those years and currently is at the 

lowest level for the history of the program in terms of policies earning premium and liability for 

the program. Additional coverage remains at a higher level than early in the program while CAT 

is lower. Prior to the 2006 Crop Provisions, a basic unit by practice could be divided into 

optional units by plant type for additional coverage policies. The 2006 Crop Provisions allowed 

a basic unit by practice to be split into basic units by plant type. This action reduced the amount 

of premium for unit division and appears to have encouraged more units. Note the significant 

increase in the number of units in 2006. 

Table 9. Distribution of Liability, Policies Earning Premium, and Units Earning Premium 

by Year, 1999 through 2011

Year

Liability Policies Earning Premium Units Earning Premium

Additional CAT Combined Additional CAT Combined Additional CAT Combined

(percent)

1999 2.5 6.8 5.8 3.2 6.9 5.8 1.3 6.5 3.9

2000 4.1 6.2 5.7 4.6 8.3 7.2 2.1 7.9 4.9

2001 4.8 6.8 6.3 5.8 8.5 7.7 2.7 8.1 5.3

2002 5.7 7.8 7.3 7.3 8.9 8.4 3.3 8.7 5.9

2003 7.0 8.3 8.0 7.7 9.2 8.8 3.5 9.0 6.2

2004 8.0 9.0 8.8 8.4 9.4 9.1 4.1 9.4 6.7

2005 9.9 9.3 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.6 4.6 9.8 7.1

2006 9.7 8.7 8.9 9.7 8.4 8.8 13.0 8.6 10.8

2007 12.9 8.8 9.8 12.3 7.8 9.1 16.8 8.2 12.6

2008 13.2 8.7 9.8 11.4 7.6 8.7 16.5 7.7 12.2

2009 8.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 5.8 6.4 12.6 6.2 9.5

2010 7.5 6.6 6.8 6.6 5.2 5.6 10.3 5.4 7.9

2011 6.2 5.4 5.6 5.6 4.2 4.6 9.1 4.5 6.8

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Summary of business data by year are included in Table 10. The average earned premium rate 

has increased over time, from 1.8 percent early in the experience period to 2.0 - 2.2 percent in 

recent years. The average earned rate was substantially lower for the 2006 crop year since it was 

a shortened year due to the change in crop year from October 1 – September 30 to June 1 – May 

31. The premium was prorated for that year according to the proration factors included on the 

actuarial documents for late applications, revised PIVR, and Peak Insurance Endorsement 

periods. This also happened to be the highest loss year in the entire experience period. If the 

average earned premium rate for that year had been 1.8 percent as it was in the immediately 

preceding years, the loss ratio for that year would have been 3.89, not 5.80. Alternatively, an 

average earned premium rate in 2006 at the level of the succeeding years (2.2 percent) would 

have reduced the loss ratio for that year to 3.09. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

85

Table 10. Summary of Business Data for Nursery 1999 through 2011 All Practices Crop Years and Summary Information 

Crop Year

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units Insured Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

1999 2,695 2,763 43 47 2,367,529 29,994 6,171 0.013 0.206 0.003

2000 3,347 3,535 188 363 2,356,727 43,989 47,101 0.019 1.071 0.020

2001 3,556 3,809 238 485 2,599,386 47,199 42,073 0.018 0.891 0.016

2002 3,898 4,243 94 240 3,006,447 53,897 9,175 0.018 0.170 0.003

2003 4,061 4,460 161 466 3,282,964 59,840 26,138 0.018 0.437 0.008

2004 4,241 4,794 431 843 3,597,695 64,032 83,503 0.018 1.304 0.023

2005 4,462 5,117 465 1,241 3,888,377 68,760 137,168 0.018 1.995 0.035

2006 4,093 7,763 598 1,596 3,673,547 43,576 252,719 0.012 5.799 0.069

2007 4,243 9,048 248 408 4,010,257 89,184 43,351 0.022 0.486 0.011

2008 4,047 8,745 83 155 4,036,440 89,820 5,838 0.022 0.065 0.001

2009 2,988 6,784 138 287 3,192,935 65,032 34,584 0.020 0.532 0.011

2010 2,615 5,675 185 361 2,791,903 58,833 38,897 0.021 0.661 0.014

2011 2,147 4,892 59 121 2,310,164 49,790 3,865 0.022 0.078 0.002

Total 46,393 71,628 2,931 6,613 41,114,371 763,946 730,583 0.019 0.956 0.018

Simple 

Average 3,569 5,510 225 509 3,162,644 58,765 56,199 0.019 1.053 0.017

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

86

The average earned premium rate also was low in 1999 relative to the other years in the 

experience period. The experience for that year represents a summation of the final year of the 

previous container-only insurance program and the first year of the new combined program. 

Most of the experience for 1999 was accrued under the new program. The earned premium rate 

was only 0.88 percent for that program because 90 percent of the premium was at the CAT level 

in 1999. In 2000, the CAT premium represented only 60 percent of the total, resulting in a 

higher average earned premium rate. 

The loss ratio has been less than 1.00 on a dollar weighted basis but exceeded 1.00 on a simple 

average basis when the effects of the short 2006 crop year are not considered. Adjusting the 

premium to reflect this non-structural aspect of the program reduces the dollar weighted loss 

ratio to 0.930 and the simple average loss ratio to 0.907 if the average premium rate is assumed 

to be 1.8 percent. With a premium rate of 2.2 percent, the dollar weighted loss ratio would have 

been 0.91 and the simple average loss ratio would have been 0.85. 

The loss ratio was quite high for the 2006 crop year even if the premium rate is adjusted to 

eliminate the effects of the shortened crop year. This was due to hurricane activity and the result 

is not abnormal. For example, the loss ratio for citrus trees for the 2005 crop year was 3.45 with 

an earned premium rate of 2.3 percent. These crop years include the same risk period for 

hurricanes: for orange trees, the crop year was November 21, 2004 to November 20, 2005 while 

for nursery the crop year was June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006. The hurricane risk period of 

June 2005 through October 2005 falls within these crop year definitions. Virtually all 

indemnities for the 2006 nursery crop year were due to hurricane and virtually all were paid in 

Florida (see the section on Review of Cause of Loss for more detail). Hurricane indemnities 

were $233 million and represented 92 percent of total indemnities for that year. The high loss 

ratio for nursery thus is consistent with the weather events for the 2006 crop year. 

The frequency of loss, measured as the units indemnified divided by units insured, varied from 

1.8 percent (2008) to 24.3 percent (2005) and averaged 9.2 percent. This outcome is an artifact 

of the structurally induced increase in unit count in 2006, when this measure of loss frequency 

was lower but indemnities, the loss ratio, and the loss cost ratio were much higher. Using 

number of policies indemnified as a measure of severity results in a range from 1.6 percent 

(1999) to 14.6 percent (2006) and an average of 6.3 percent. 

The same patterns emerge when the data are examined by practice (Tables 11 and 12). Business 

peaked in the middle of the decade of the 2000s and has declined significantly since. The 

substantially lower average premium rate in 1999 was due to the field grown practice. This was 

the first year of insurance for the practice and most producers who elected to insure chose the 

CAT level. The earned premium rate for both practices declined in 2006 due to the short crop 

year, and the percentage of decline was nearly the same (-33 percent for container and -32 

percent for field grown).59

 This is to be expected since the proration factors were the same for 

both practices. 

 

59 These percentages are calculated from un-rounded numbers, not the rounded data included in the table. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

87

Table 11. Summary of Business Data for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Crop Years and Summary Information 

Crop Year

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units Insured Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

1999 2,266 2,282 35 37 1,136,033 21,700 4,186 0.019 0.193 0.004

2000 2,691 2,713 164 310 1,358,965 28,565 28,866 0.021 1.011 0.021

2001 2,870 2,910 208 424 1,552,917 32,059 37,701 0.021 1.176 0.024

2002 3,102 3,142 79 211 1,805,923 37,138 8,643 0.021 0.233 0.005

2003 3,193 3,235 125 412 1,995,805 41,073 20,842 0.021 0.507 0.010

2004 3,278 3,379 303 633 2,110,588 42,856 42,982 0.020 1.003 0.020

2005 3,410 3,499 414 1,067 2,255,018 45,415 114,978 0.020 2.532 0.051

2006 3,091 5,923 466 1,274 2,143,224 28,769 166,725 0.013 5.795 0.078

2007 3,175 7,052 99 193 2,440,198 63,816 11,328 0.026 0.178 0.005

2008 3,006 6,742 60 116 2,429,946 62,355 3,870 0.026 0.062 0.002

2009 2,170 5,111 73 172 2,010,105 44,616 6,410 0.022 0.144 0.003

2010 1,889 4,199 117 263 1,778,674 42,638 8,690 0.024 0.204 0.005

2011 1,540 3,634 43 104 1,537,237 37,261 1,697 0.024 0.046 0.001

Totals 35,681 53,821 2,186 5,216 24,554,633 528,261 456,919 0.022 0.865 0.019

Simple Average 2,745 4,140 168 401 1,888,818 40,635 35,148 0.021 1.006 0.018

Percent of All 

Nursery 77 75 75 79 60 69 63 115 96 106

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

88

Table 12. Summary of Business Data for Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Crop Years and Summary Information 

Crop Year

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

1999 759 765 12 12 1,231,497 8,294 1,985 0.007 0.239 0.002

2000 1,316 1,320 36 57 997,761 15,424 18,235 0.015 1.182 0.018

2001 1,436 1,441 46 62 1,046,469 15,139 4,371 0.014 0.289 0.004

2002 1,637 1,654 21 29 1,200,524 16,759 532 0.014 0.032 0.000

2003 1,793 1,821 48 57 1,287,159 18,767 5,295 0.015 0.282 0.004

2004 1,918 1,951 178 222 1,487,107 21,176 40,521 0.014 1.914 0.027

2005 2,094 2,138 114 182 1,633,359 23,346 22,190 0.014 0.951 0.014

2006 1,869 2,560 228 360 1,530,322 14,807 85,994 0.010 5.808 0.056

2007 1,938 2,807 160 225 1,570,059 25,368 32,023 0.016 1.262 0.020

2008 1,843 2,762 25 40 1,606,494 27,465 1,968 0.017 0.072 0.001

2009 1,410 2,205 77 120 1,182,829 20,416 28,174 0.017 1.380 0.024

2010 1,212 1,900 81 103 1,013,229 16,196 30,207 0.016 1.865 0.030

2011 956 1,549 17 17 772,927 12,529 2,168 0.016 0.173 0.003

Totals 20,181 24,873 1,043 1,486 16,559,739 235,685 273,664 0.014 1.161 0.017

Simple Average 1,552 1,913 80 114 1,273,826 18,130 21,051 0.014 1.188 0.016

Percent of All 

Nursery 44 35 36 22 40 31 37 77 113 94

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

89

The two practices differ in terms of the behavior of the loss ratio. Since the most likely causes of 

loss for each practice have some unique characteristics, this is to be expected. The field-grown 

practice has markedly worse loss ratios in 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2010, and better loss ratios than 

container practice in 2001 and 2005. The experience of the two practices is similar in the other 

years, even including the extreme loss year of 2006. To facilitate comparisons, Table 13 

presents the loss ratios side-by-side along with a restatement with adjusted premium rates for 

2006 using the 2005 premium rates. With the adjustment, the dollar weighted and simple 

average loss ratios for container practice are very nearly the same at about 0.85, but the two 

measures of the loss ratio continue to differ for field grown practice. Both measures of the loss 

ratio remain over 1.00 for that practice. 

Table 13. Loss Ratio Comparison by Practice by Year 

Crop Year

Actual 2006 Adjusted

Container Field 

Grown Container Field Grown

1999 0.193 0.239 0.193 0.239

2000 1.011 1.182 1.011 1.182

2001 1.176 0.289 1.176 0.289

2002 0.233 0.032 0.233 0.032

2003 0.507 0.282 0.507 0.282

2004 1.003 1.914 1.003 1.914

2005 2.532 0.951 2.532 0.951

2006 5.795 5.808 3.863 3.932

2007 0.178 1.262 0.178 1.262

2008 0.062 0.072 0.062 0.072

2009 0.144 1.380 0.144 1.380

2010 0.204 1.865 0.204 1.865

2011 0.046 0.173 0.046 0.173

Dollars Weighted 0.865 1.161 0.842 1.127

Simple Average 1.006 1.188 0.858 1.044

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience 

data. 

Experience by State 1999 through 2011 

This section of the data analysis begins to drill into the data to gain a better understanding of the 

insurance experience. Nursery insurance was in force in 49 of the 50 states between 1999 and 

2011. At least one policy earned premium in nearly every state each year. Indemnities were 

paid in 36 states although 96 percent of indemnities were paid in only 4 states. 

Table 14 presents the summary of business data for the top eleven states ranked in terms of 

liability. Eleven states are included since the total liability for the tenth and eleventh place was 

very nearly the same. These 11 states represented most of the liability and premium and nearly 

all the indemnities. Florida alone represents 28 percent of the liability, 55 percent of the 

premium, and 86 percent of the indemnities for the nursery program. Although the earned 

premium rate in Florida is double the national average, the loss ratio still is about 1.50. Four 

states – Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina – account for nearly all the indemnities. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

90

Table 14. Top 11 States: Summary of Business Data by for All Practices Nursery 1999 

through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

State Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 dollars)

Earned 

Premium Rate Loss Ratio

Loss Cost 

Ratio

Florida 11,397,304 419,964 627,585 0.037 1.494 0.055

California 5,673,427 46,825 1,430 0.008 0.031 0.000

Oregon 4,355,501 44,602 - 0.010 0.000 0.000

Tennessee 2,532,946 26,984 56,735 0.011 2.103 0.022

Texas 2,084,946 44,522 8,222 0.021 0.185 0.004

North Carolina 1,645,482 25,071 8,338 0.015 0.333 0.005

Illinois 1,423,354 13,612 16 0.010 0.001 0.000

Georgia 1,219,743 17,176 543 0.014 0.032 0.000

South Carolina 1,006,451 15,784 133 0.016 0.008 0.000

Michigan 974,213 9,377 741 0.010 0.079 0.001

Ohio 973,797 9,011 180 0.009 0.020 0.000

Total 33,287,163 672,927 703,924 0.020 1.046 0.021

Grand Total 41,114,371 763,946 730,583 0.019 0.956 0.018

All Other States 7,827,208 91,019 26,659 0.012 0.293 0.003

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Data by practice are shown in Tables 15 and 16. The results are essentially the same as those 

included in Table 14. The same states are included, with only Minnesota being different from 

Table 14. Minnesota occupies the tenth place for field grown practice in terms of cumulative 

liability. The top 10 states in each practice accounted for 91 to 99 percent of the indemnities. 

One factor is evident; the loss ratio for all other states for field grown practice is considerably 

higher than the loss ratio for all other states for container practice. This may be indicative of an 

imbalance in rating not just in a few states, but across the board. Data for all states are included 

on the data disc. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

91

Table 15. Top 10 States: Summary of Business Data by for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

State Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Percent of all 

Indemnities

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

Florida 8,101,839 319,333 432,178 0.946 0.039 1.353 0.053

California 3,930,018 33,303 970 0.002 0.008 0.029 0.000

Oregon 2,266,581 25,621 0 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000

Texas 1,813,096 39,985 7,005 0.015 0.022 0.175 0.004

North Carolina 890,792 14,299 1,686 0.004 0.016 0.118 0.002

South Carolina 678,368 11,437 129 0.000 0.017 0.011 0.000

Georgia 647,656 11,026 543 0.001 0.017 0.049 0.001

Michigan 584,581 5,743 0 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000

Tennessee 491,226 5,888 10,294 0.023 0.012 1.748 0.021

Ohio 472,067 4,463 0 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000

Total 19,876,223 471,098 452,803 0.991 0.024 0.961 0.023

Grand Total 24,554,633 528,261 456,919 1.000 0.022 0.723 0.016

All Other States 4,678,409 57,163 4,116 0.009 0.012 0.072 0.001

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Table 16. Top 10 States: Summary of Business Data by for Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

State Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Percent of all 

Indemnities

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

Florida 3,295,466 100,632 195,407 0.714 0.031 1.942 0.059

Oregon 2,088,920 18,981 0 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000

Tennessee 2,041,720 21,095 46,442 0.170 0.010 2.201 0.023

California 1,743,409 13,522 460 0.002 0.008 0.034 0.000

Illinois 1,020,477 9,380 4 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000

North Carolina 754,690 10,772 6,652 0.024 0.014 0.618 0.009

Georgia 572,087 6,150 0 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000

Ohio 501,730 4,548 180 0.001 0.009 0.040 0.000

Michigan 389,633 3,634 741 0.003 0.009 0.204 0.002

Minnesota 353,855 3,575 179 0.001 0.010 0.050 0.001

Total 12,761,984 192,289 250,065 0.914 0.015 1.277 0.019

Grand Total 16,559,739 235,685 273,664 1.000 0.014 1.161 0.017

All Other States 3,797,754 43,397 23,598 0.086 0.011 0.544 0.006

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Experience by County 1999 through 2011 

Policies earned premium in 1,182 counties during this period. The average number of policies 

earning premium was less than one per year in 666 counties (56 percent). An average of 5

policies per year earned premium in 101 counties (8.5 percent), and an average of 10 or more 

policies per year earned premium in 53 counties (4.4 percent). Thus, although nursery policies 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

92

earned premium in slightly more than one-third of the counties nationwide, only a few counties 

accounted for the bulk of the liability, premium, and indemnities. 

Data for the top 25 counties in terms of liability are included in Table 17. Seven of these 

counties are in Florida, seven are in California, four are in Oregon, three are in Tennessee, and 

Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Oklahoma accounted for one each. These 25 counties 

accounted for slightly less than one-half of the liability, nearly 60 percent of the premium, and 

over 80 percent of the indemnities. Although the earned premium rate exceeded the national 

average, the loss ratio was 1.34 for the period (dollar weighted). Six counties – four in Florida 

and two in Tennessee – accounted for most of the indemnities. Data by practice are included in 

Tables 18 and 19. The results are the same as for the combined practice data. A few counties 

account for most of the indemnities and most counties have a favorable loss ratio for the entire 

period. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

93

Table 17. Top 25 Counties: Summary of Business Data by for All Practices Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

State County Units Insured Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 dollars)

Earned 

Premium Rate Loss Ratio Loss Cost Ratio

Florida Miami-Dade 1/ 12,320 4,453,531 212,633 395,410 0.048 1.860 0.089

Tennessee Warren 2,248 1,242,962 12,001 28,767 0.010 2.397 0.023

Florida Palm Beach 5,192 1,218,845 51,170 117,025 0.042 2.287 0.096

Oregon Washington 242 1,205,394 12,525 - 0.010 0.000 0.000

Oregon Clackamas 436 1,011,872 10,350 - 0.010 0.000 0.000

California Kern 153 955,346 7,431 24 0.008 0.003 0.000

Oregon Yamhill 116 922,537 9,634 - 0.010 0.000 0.000

Oregon Marion 448 765,703 7,945 - 0.010 0.000 0.000

California San Diego 438 703,692 5,718 569 0.008 0.100 0.001

Florida Lake 1,257 670,692 18,366 3,206 0.027 0.175 0.005

California Orange 1,603 576,078 4,882 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

Florida Lee 223 570,627 15,659 14,513 0.027 0.927 0.025

Florida Orange 1,092 507,728 14,639 4,962 0.029 0.339 0.010

California Tulare 2,352 500,366 4,181 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

Michigan Ottawa 90 440,441 4,315 - 0.010 0.000 0.000

California Riverside 116 416,038 3,401 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

Tennessee De Kalb 179 392,189 4,352 12,063 0.011 2.772 0.031

Tennessee Franklin 772 390,138 4,973 4,121 0.013 0.829 0.011

California Ventura 700 386,586 3,126 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

Florida Hillsborough 244 370,556 10,183 521 0.027 0.051 0.001

Ohio Lake 1,224 354,876 3,228 - 0.009 0.000 0.000

California Los Angeles 120 353,391 3,092 - 0.009 0.000 0.000

Oklahoma Cherokee 155 333,401 4,225 - 0.013 0.000 0.000

New Jersey Cumberland 72 307,016 3,603 - 0.012 0.000 0.000

Florida Martin 112 274,065 10,051 12,198 0.037 1.214 0.045

Total 25 Counties 31,904 19,324,072 441,684 593,378 0.023 1.343 0.031

All Other Counties 21,790,299 322,263 137,204 0.015 0.426 0.006

1/ Includes Dade County 

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

94

Table 18. Top 25 Counties: Summary of Business Data by for Container Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

State County Units 

Insured

Liability (1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

Florida Miami-Dade 1/ 11,758 3,395,758 173,865 299,523 0.051 1.723 0.088

Florida Palm Beach 4,165 800,752 34,807 80,715 0.043 2.319 0.101

Oregon Washington 172 708,883 7,975 - 0.011 0.000 0.000

Florida Lake 1,472 633,718 17,340 2,801 0.027 0.162 0.004

California San Diego 417 626,468 5,139 569 0.008 0.111 0.001

California Orange 221 576,046 4,881 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

Oregon Yamhill 77 554,214 6,256 - 0.011 0.000 0.000

Florida Orange 2,309 496,634 14,367 4,835 0.029 0.337 0.010

Oregon Marion 341 462,303 5,242 - 0.011 0.000 0.000

Oregon Clackamas 342 433,464 4,989 - 0.012 0.000 0.000

California Ventura 240 370,196 2,991 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

California Tulare 54 368,849 3,111 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

California Los Angeles 153 347,723 3,046 - 0.009 0.000 0.000

Oklahoma Cherokee 61 329,721 4,189 - 0.013 0.000 0.000

Florida Hillsborough 1,036 321,687 8,964 327 0.028 0.036 0.001

Tennessee De Kalb 374 272,853 3,193 8,011 0.012 2.509 0.029

Michigan Ottawa 100 265,779 2,642 - 0.010 0.000 0.000

Florida Gadsden 128 258,481 4,688 236 0.018 0.050 0.001

Texas Coke 69 247,248 5,007 - 0.020 0.000 0.000

California Monterey 87 235,897 1,931 148 0.008 0.077 0.001

California Solano 32 233,669 1,971 - 0.008 0.000 0.000

Texas Cass 154 233,604 5,218 - 0.022 0.000 0.000

Georgia Grady 76 231,841 3,948 - 0.017 0.000 0.000

California San Joaquin 82 213,437 1,871 128 0.009 0.068 0.001

Texas Fort Bend 115 196,515 5,179 75 0.026 0.014 0.000

Total 25 Counties 24,035 12,815,740 332,810 397,368 0.026 1.194 0.031

All Other Counties 29,786 11,738,893 195,451 59,551 0.017 0.305 0.005

1/ Includes Dade County 

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

95

Table 19. Top 25 Counties: Summary of Business Data by for Field Grown Practice Nursery 

1999 through 2011 Totals and Summary Information 

State County Units 

Insured

Liability 

(1,000 dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

Tennessee Warren 1,861 1,112,627 10,394 27,196 0.009 2.617 0.024

California Kern 120 899,940 6,937 24 0.008 0.003 0.000

Florida Miami-Dade 1/ 2,526 1,057,774 30,944 95,887 0.029 3.099 0.091

Oregon Clackamas 294 578,408 5,361 0 0.009 0.000 0.000

Oregon Washington 173 496,511 4,551 0 0.009 0.000 0.000

Florida Lee 790 468,892 12,590 13,210 0.027 1.049 0.028

Florida Palm Beach 1,411 418,093 16,363 36,310 0.039 2.219 0.087

Tennessee Franklin 636 377,569 4,813 3,905 0.013 0.811 0.010

Oregon Yamhill 95 368,324 3,378 0 0.009 0.000 0.000

Oregon Marion 303 303,401 2,703 0 0.009 0.000 0.000

California Riverside 48 275,715 2,118 0 0.008 0.000 0.000

North Carolina Caldwell 348 215,731 3,275 3,540 0.015 1.081 0.016

Illinois McHenry 210 193,016 1,780 0 0.009 0.000 0.000

Michigan Ottawa 52 174,662 7,824 0 0.045 0.000 0.000

Tennessee Grundy 367 171,041 1,673 4,448 0.010 2.658 0.026

Tennessee Coffee 213 169,666 2,165 48 0.013 0.022 0.000

Ohio Lake 66 169,331 1,567 0 0.009 0.000 0.000

New Jersey Cumberland 71 168,453 1,493 0 0.009 0.000 0.000

North Carolina Burke 332 167,607 2,055 1,951 0.012 0.949 0.012

Oregon Multnomah 97 166,588 2,303 0 0.014 0.000 0.000

Illinois Kane 97 154,518 1,475 0 0.010 0.000 0.000

Ohio Clarke 32 138,159 1,427 0 0.010 0.000 0.000

California Tulare 51 131,517 1,282 0 0.010 0.000 0.000

Tennessee De Kalb 507 119,336 1,071 4,052 0.009 3.785 0.034

Maryland Kent 36 118,495 1,159 0 0.010 0.000 0.000

Total 25 Counties 10,736 8,615,374 130,698 190,570 0.015 1.458 0.022

All Other Counties 14,137 7,944,365 104,987 83,093 0.013 0.791 0.010

1/ Includes Dade County 

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

96

These results differ from the norm for crop insurance. Normally, areas with the greatest 

concentration of liability tend to have better insurance performance than do areas with smaller 

volumes of business. With nursery, even with geographic dispersion (Tennessee and southern 

Florida) and diverse growing conditions (container versus field grown), the loss ratios are worse 

in the regions with the greatest concentration of liability. This clustering of loss was one of the 

reasons these areas were singled out as targets for listening sessions. 

Experience by Reporting Organization 1999 through 2011 

This section concludes the overall review of the crop insurance experience by considering the 

relative performance of individual reporting organizations. This review is required by the 

Program Evaluation Handbook. A total of 34 reporting organizations are included in the data for 

this period. However, very few were involved for all years. 

Table 20 categorizes reporting organizations by length of sales activity and by recent activity. 

Four organizations had policies earning premium in all years of the experience period, 

accounting for about 70 percent of liability and premium and 84 percent of indemnities. One of 

the four had very little business. Of the other three, one had a loss ratio greater than 1.00 and the 

other two were under that threshold. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

97

Table 20. Summary of Business Data by Reporting Organization for All Practices Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Reporting 

Organization

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss 

Ratio

Loss Cost 

Ratio

All Years

MJ 16,266 21,809 1,132 2,753 15,645,181 301,041 396,821 0.019 1.318 0.025

OW 11,549 19,477 737 1,336 11,858,343 225,736 191,714 0.019 0.849 0.016

HL 3,688 5,483 228 446 1,471,303 30,331 24,854 0.021 0.819 0.017

HK 165 363 9 18 57,406 795 938 0.014 1.180 0.016

Total 31,668 47,132 2,106 4,553 29,032,233 557,903 614,327 0.019 1.101 0.021

Five or More Years Ending 2011 

UB 3,173 7,461 214 443 3,092,490 53,590 25,630 0.017 0.478 0.008

SU 2,149 4,349 209 468 1,857,227 33,905 23,769 0.018 0.701 0.013

PL 594 1,038 15 27 400,012 5,395 4,229 0.013 0.784 0.011

HS 310 734 36 52 344,609 3,308 12,963 0.010 3.919 0.038

LU 361 766 22 31 306,560 12,929 3,628 0.042 0.281 0.012

AX 111 585 7 13 127,327 2,419 8,074 0.019 3.337 0.063

TH 43 43 - - 33,403 374 - 0.011 - -

UF 65 122 5 5 20,781 275 552 0.013 2.009 0.027

Total 6,806 15,098 508 1,039 6,182,409 112,194 78,845 0.018 0.703 0.013
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

98

Table 20: Summary of Business Data by Reporting Organization for All Practices Nursery 1999 through 2011 (Continued) 

Reporting 

Organization

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss 

Ratio

Loss Cost 

Ratio

No Experience Since 2006 

MN 1,706 1,759 16 26 1,734,548 17,026 696 0.010 0.041 0.000

PS 952 1,224 21 21 1,175,107 11,322 2,784 0.010 0.246 0.002

YH 2,082 2,290 186 831 1,169,509 26,292 22,652 0.022 0.862 0.019

PW 712 738 11 15 469,579 5,484 225 0.012 0.041 0.000

KT 414 416 9 9 212,952 6,522 869 0.031 0.133 0.004

UT 367 368 6 6 173,550 3,388 579 0.020 0.171 0.003

MM 124 133 - - 120,180 1,052 - 0.009 - -

XL 350 354 2 2 119,025 2,883 28 0.024 0.010 0.000

OG 201 202 3 3 106,329 1,513 20 0.014 0.013 0.000

SX 145 147 3 3 26,354 894 961 0.034 1.075 0.036

CA 66 66 - - 9,172 290 - 0.032 - -

PK 5 5 - - 6,128 54 - 0.009 - -

XU 16 16 - - 4,846 51 - 0.010 - -

IF 7 11 - - 1,877 65 - 0.034 - -

SE 2 3 - - 263 3 - 0.011 - -

OK 1 1 - - 11 0 - 0.010 - -

Total 7,150 7,733 257 916 5,329,429 76,837 28,814 0.014 0.375 0.005

All Other 

MB 417 889 46 86 319,528 5,394 4,417 0.017 0.819 0.014

BM 210 476 5 8 196,512 10,155 519 0.052 0.051 0.003

HB 103 214 7 9 39,685 1,243 3,612 0.031 2.906 0.091

BF 7 15 - - 7,379 132 - 0.018 - -

DH 31 70 2 2 5,554 77 47 0.014 0.616 0.009

IF 7 11 - - 1,877 65 - 0.034 - -

ET 1 1 - - 1,643 12 - 0.007 - -

Total 776 1,676 60 105 572,178 17,077 8,596 0.030 0.503 0.015

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

99

A second group entitled “five or more years ending in 2011” is intended to capture those 

organizations that have been active in recent years and that have established a longer term 

presence in the nursery insurance business. There are eight such organizations. This group 

accounts for about 15 percent of premium and liability and 11 percent of indemnities. As a 

group, the loss ratio is favorable although three smaller organizations had losses exceeding 

premium. 

A third group entitled “no experience since 2006” is intended to capture those organizations that 

no longer are active in sales of nursery insurance. There are 16 such organizations. This does 

not mean the organizations no longer sell crop insurance – the Contractor cannot determine if 

these organizations continue to hold a Standard Reinsurance Agreement – but only that the 

organizations have not had a policy earning premium in recent years. This group accounted for 

the majority of the remaining premium, liability, and indemnities. 

The final group entitled “all other” represents the seven organizations that did not fit into one of 

the other three groups. This group consists of organizations that have not had a policy earning 

premium since 1999 and those that may have had one or two years of activity in recent years. As 

a group, these organizations only represent one to two percent of premium, liability, and 

indemnity. 

Considering the first two groups, three organizations (HS, AX, and UF) have loss ratios 

considerably higher than the all-industry average. All three are relatively small with total 

premium for the three being less than one percent of the total for the nursery program. 

Experience by Coverage Level 1999 through 2011 

Experience by coverage level for all nursery practices is included in Table 21. As demonstrated 

previously, most of the business for these years is at the CAT level, which has demonstrated 

good insurance experience in terms of a low loss ratio. The loss ratio at every additional 

coverage level exceeds 1.00. This is somewhat perplexing in the case of the 50 percent coverage 

level since the loss procedures calculate the indemnity as though the coverage were at the 50 

percent coverage level and then multiply that amount by 0.55 to determine the CAT indemnity. 

Even so, the loss ratio at the 50 percent coverage level is more than triple the loss ratio at the 

CAT level. Based on the much higher potential indemnities, producers with 50 percent buy-up 

policies have greater incentives to report losses, but the occurrence of an event that causes a 50 

percent loss of inventory would very likely be reported in any event. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

100

Table 21. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for All Practices Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

CAT 32,458 34,956 589 593 31,188,583 415,653 127,371 0.013 0.306 0.004

0.50 4,290 11,508 362 780 2,667,625 50,807 55,419 0.019 1.091 0.021

0.55 544 1,391 61 109 414,617 10,983 14,935 0.026 1.360 0.036

0.60 3,040 7,966 453 1,241 2,210,507 65,792 107,996 0.030 1.641 0.049

0.65 2,408 5,052 392 904 1,375,788 60,423 73,063 0.044 1.209 0.053

0.70 2,247 5,800 610 1,647 2,248,672 116,793 259,451 0.052 2.221 0.115

0.75 2,388 5,166 557 1,343 1,008,581 43,497 92,347 0.043 2.123 0.092

Total 47,375 71,839 3,024 6,617 41,114,371 763,946 730,583 0.019 0.956 0.018

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

101

The reader may note that the count of policies for additional coverage levels does not sum to the 

total contained in Table 4. This occurs because the insured can elect different coverage levels 

among plant types (basic units) for additional coverage. Hence, a policy may have a unit at the 

50 percent coverage level and another unit at the 75 percent level. The policy will be counted 

twice when segregated into coverage level choices. All other data are not affected by this 

condition. 

Data by practice are included in Tables 22 and 23. The results differ somewhat in that the loss 

ratio performance differs among coverage levels. Field grown practice is not uniformly worse 

than container practice even though the overall loss ratio is higher. Contrary to a widely held 

concept, insureds do not seem to be taking advantage of a premium rate that appears unduly low. 

Although the data imply the field grown practice has been consistently under-rated during the 

experience period, a greater percentage of the liability for that practice is at the CAT level (81 

percent versus 72 percent). In addition, only 8.2 percent of the liability is at the 65, 70, and 75 

percent coverage levels as compared to 13.3 percent for the field grown practice. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

102

Table 22. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss 

Ratio

Loss Cost 

Ratio

CAT 24,557 25,296 306 307 17,718,228 265,069 53,048 0.015 0.200 0.003

0.50 3,219 8,726 235 536 1,743,803 34,991 19,741 0.020 0.670 0.013

0.55 434 1,038 43 79 308,198 8,904 13,059 0.029 1.467 0.042

0.60 2,417 6,273 376 1,038 1,507,922 47,276 88,349 0.031 1.869 0.059

0.65 2,100 4,210 346 762 1,066,333 50,029 57,922 0.047 1.158 0.054

0.70 1,817 4,503 488 1,347 1,593,142 90,961 161,967 0.057 1.781 0.102

0.75 1,813 3,775 457 1,147 617,007 31,031 62,834 0.050 2.025 0.102

Total 36,357 53,821 2,251 5,216 24,554,633 528,261 456,919 0.022 0.865 0.019

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Table 23. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

CAT 14,690 15,120 324 327 13,470,354 150,584 74,323 0.011 0.494 0.006

0.50 1,755 3,213 168 247 923,822 15,815 35,678 0.017 2.256 0.039

0.55 225 390 24 32 106,418 2,078 1,876 0.020 0.903 0.018

0.60 1,249 2,055 137 213 702,584 18,515 19,647 0.026 1.061 0.028

0.65 661 965 86 147 309,455 10,394 15,141 0.034 1.457 0.049

0.70 834 1,513 184 311 655,530 25,832 97,484 0.039 3.774 0.149

0.75 959 1,617 141 209 391,574 12,467 29,513 0.032 2.367 0.075

Total 20,373 24,873 1,064 1,486 16,559,739 235,685 273,664 0.014 1.161 0.017

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

103

Experience of Optional Coverage 1999 through 2011 

Three optional coverage plans are offered under the nursery program: the Peak Endorsement, 

the Nursery Grower’s Price Option, and the Rehabilitation Endorsement. The data capture 

processes for each of these suffer deficiencies that do not permit specific evaluation of the 

performance of the option. These deficiencies will be explained when the data pertaining to 

those policies that elected an option is considered. 

Peak Endorsement 

The Peak Endorsement allows the insured to increase the liability by up to 200 percent of the 

originally reported amount for a specified period of time. Only one Peak Endorsement may be 

established on a unit per crop year unless a loss has occurred and the nursery is restocked. 

The Data Acceptance System (DAS) is structured such that an individual data record is 

processed to establish premium for an original Plant Inventory Value Report (PIVR), a revised 

PIVR, or a Peak Endorsement. Each of these records contains only the amount of insurance 

relevant to that report. The liability and premium associated with a Peak Endorsement can be 

determined. 

However, when the amount of a loss is determined, the loss adjuster establishes the full value of 

the plants on the unit before the loss event (Field Market Value A) and the value of the plants 

after the loss event (Field Market Value B). The amount of loss is Field Market Value A minus 

Field Market Value B.60 Both values are based on the actual inventory present at loss. The 

amount of insurance serves only as an upper limit on the amount of the indemnity. There is no 

way to determine whether the plants involved in the loss were those added by a Peak 

Endorsement. The amount of the indemnity is determined at the unit level irrespective of the 

source of the liability – an original PIVR, a revised PIVR, or a Peak Endorsement. 

The Contractor will consider the data for the Peak Endorsement in two distinct approaches. 

First, the liability added by the Endorsement will be evaluated. Table 24 contains the aggregate 

summary of business data for the Peak Endorsement and Tables 25 and 26 contain the data by 

practice. 

 

60 Some adjustments such as an under- or over-report factor can be introduced but this expression embodies the conceptual basis 

of the loss adjustment process. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

104

Table 24. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for All Practices with Peak Endorsement Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.5 271 495 16 30 121,113 969 1,623 0.008 1.675 0.013

0.55 67 240 4 10 27,349 293 377 0.011 1.288 0.014

0.60 420 731 45 106 254,934 2,794 4,616 0.011 1.653 0.018

0.65 357 429 27 53 105,284 1,786 1,071 0.017 0.600 0.010

0.70 456 824 87 235 334,152 7,077 12,171 0.021 1.720 0.036

0.75 398 568 35 100 137,976 2,268 1,161 0.016 0.512 0.008

Total 1,969 3,287 214 534 980,809 15,187 21,019 0.015 1.384 0.021

Percent of 

SOB Total 

Values for All 

Coverage

4.2 4.6 7.1 8.1 2.4 2.0 2.9 83.3 144.7 120.6

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Table 25. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice 

with Peak Endorsement Nursery 1999 through 2011

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.5 222 423 12 23 102,375 873 585 0.009 0.323 0.003

0.55 48 179 3 8 21,865 249 158 0.011 0.289 0.003

0.60 339 611 38 92 233,174 2,561 1,634 0.011 3.050 0.034

0.65 299 369 23 49 91,271 1,575 926 0.017 1.273 0.022

0.70 400 753 82 225 272,570 6,271 3,696 0.023 3.057 0.070

0.75 319 480 34 99 95,896 1,738 873 0.018 2.804 0.051

Total 1,627 2,815 192 496 817,151 13,268 7,871 0.016 2.579 0.042

Percent of 

SOB Total 

Values for All 

Coverage

3.4 3.9 6.3 7.5 2.0 1.7 1.1 87.4 269.7 235.6

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

105

Table 26. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Peak Endorsement Nursery 1999 through 2011

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.5 49 72 4 7 18,738 96 1,038 0.005 10.832 0.055

0.55 19 61 1 2 5,484 43 219 0.008 5.054 0.040

0.60 81 120 7 14 21,760 232 2,983 0.011 12.843 0.137

0.65 58 60 4 4 14,014 212 145 0.015 0.686 0.010

0.70 56 71 5 10 61,582 806 8,475 0.013 10.515 0.138

0.75 79 88 1 1 42,080 531 288 0.013 0.543 0.007

Total 342 472 22 38 163,658 1,920 13,148 0.012 6.849 0.080

Percent of 

Total Values 

for All 

Coverage

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.8 63.1 716.2 452.1

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

106

Rehabilitation Endorsement 

The Rehabilitation Endorsement is available only for the field grown practice. It can be likened 

to replanting coverage offered by many crop insurance policies. It is a salvage operation 

intended to compensate the grower for certain costs that may result in avoidance of all or part of 

an indemnity. As is the case with replanting, a payment under this Endorsement is not 

considered an indemnity for the purpose of determining the maximum indemnity that may be 

paid for a crop year. 

The data seemingly indicate that seven policies earning premium under container practice had 

the Rehabilitation Endorsement in effect at some point in the 1999 to 2011 period. This most 

likely is an artifact of the data structure. Most likely, a policy with both container and field 

grown practice chose the Endorsement on or before sales closing and the option code was 

included in all records pertaining to that policy. The Data Acceptance System for 2010 does 

indicate that the common option code RH is to be used only with practice 007. The Contractor 

will assume that these seven policies were incorrectly coded. In any event, no amount is 

included in the indemnity field. 

The data also indicate that one policy at the CAT level had a Rehabilitation Endorsement in 

effect for one year during the experience period. Again, the Contractor will assume this policy 

had CAT on the container practice and additional coverage on the field grown practice. Hence, 

the Endorsement was valid at the policy level. 

Table 27 contains the experience data by coverage level for policies with the field grown practice 

that had the Rehabilitation Endorsement in effect at some point in the experience period. Almost 

ten percent of the policies earning premium had the Endorsement in effect. The share of liability 

was slightly smaller. The share of units earning premium, premium, and indemnities is 

considerably larger. The earned premium rate also is much higher than the average for the field 

grown practice. The reason is that 73 percent of the liability under the Endorsement and 86 

percent of the premium arose from policies in Florida. Referring to Table 14 demonstrates that 

the average earned premium rate in Florida was much greater than the average for all states. The 

data for the Rehabilitation Endorsement are over-weighted to that state. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

107

Table 27. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Rehabilitation Endorsement Nursery 1999 though 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.5 623 1,365 63 94 362,812 7,609 10,620 0.021 1.396 0.029

0.55 72 142 7 8 34,582 796 636 0.023 0.798 0.018

0.60 505 978 47 69 268,962 7,539 9,100 0.028 1.207 0.034

0.65 179 369 20 50 135,737 5,113 7,438 0.038 1.455 0.055

0.70 329 792 69 123 265,204 12,550 63,512 0.047 5.061 0.239

0.75 234 571 38 60 73,567 2,573 3,720 0.035 1.446 0.051

Total 1,942 4,217 244 404 1,140,864 36,181 95,026 0.032 2.626 0.083

Percent of 

Field 

Grown

9.5 17.0 22.9 27.2 6.9 15.4 34.7 222.8 226.2 504.0

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

108

The loss ratio for all policies with field grown practice in Florida was 1.94 compared to 2.63 for 

this group of policies. The maximum rehabilitation payments that could have been made are 7.5 

percent of the liability. If the assumption that the liability on loss units was proportional to the 

ratio of loss units to the units insured is accepted, the liability on loss units would be 

approximately $109 million. The maximum rehabilitation payments would be $8.2 million, 

leaving approximately $86.8 million of indemnities for losses. The loss ratio under this set of 

assumptions is 2.40. Clearly, the Endorsement either was adversely selected or it failed to 

accomplish the desired goal of reducing the severity of losses. 

Nursery Grower’s Price Endorsement

The Price Endorsement allows nursery growers to establish an insurance price greater than that 

allowed by the PPS. The Endorsement must be selected on or before the sales closing date. The 

grower is required to identify those plants for which the price is to be increased and include the 

total value of all plants in a unit, including those with normal pricing, on the PIVR. The grower 

is required to provide an upgraded plant list, but this document is not included with the electronic 

data. From the perspective of the data, the only distinguishing characteristic is the PO common 

option code. All individual plant prices remain in the insured’s file with the AIP. Hence, the 

data may be analyzed only at an aggregate level. There is no way to determine the percentage 

increase in the amount of insurance due to the Endorsement. 

Summary of business data for policies that elected the Endorsement are contained in Tables 28, 

29, and 30 for all practices, the container practice, and the field grown practice, respectively. 

Only about two percent of policies earning premium elected the Endorsement, most of which 

were insured under container practice. Ninety-eight percent of the liability on container practice 

was from policies earning premium in Florida, as was 53 percent of the liability on field grown 

practice. Most of the remaining liability on field grown practice was from policies earning 

premium in Washington. The relatively high average earned premium rate reflects the 

concentration of business in Florida. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

109

Table 28. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for All Practices with Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.5 195 784 11 23 108,856 2,924 917 0.027 0.314 0.008

0.55 24 72 0 0 37,902 1,642 - 0.043 0.000 0.000

0.60 180 745 25 63 135,319 6,300 1,596 0.047 0.253 0.012

0.65 205 688 29 79 215,923 13,848 2,703 0.064 0.195 0.013

0.70 226 784 38 122 216,389 17,387 4,423 0.080 0.254 0.020

0.75 58 194 16 39 22,481 2,424 511 0.108 0.211 0.023

Total 888 3,267 119 326 736,870 44,527 10,150 0.060 0.228 0.014

Percent of 

Total 1.9 4.6 4.1 4.9 1.8 5.8 1.4 325.2 23.8 77.5

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Table 29. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice 

with Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.5 186 771 11 23 106,886 2,879 917 0.027 0.319 0.009

0.55 24 72 0 0 37,902 1,642 - 0.043 0.000 0.000

0.60 175 736 24 62 132,254 6,191 1,500 0.047 0.242 0.011

0.65 188 666 26 76 206,929 13,668 2,550 0.066 0.187 0.012

0.70 223 776 38 122 216,263 17,381 4,423 0.080 0.255 0.020

0.75 53 189 16 39 22,056 2,405 511 0.109 0.212 0.023

Total 849 3,210 115 322 722,290 44,166 9,901 0.061 0.224 0.014

Percent of 

Total 2.4 6.0 5.3 6.2 2.9 8.4 2.2 284.2 25.9 73.7

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

110

Table 30. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.5 9 13 0 0 1,970 46 - 0.023 0.000 0.000

0.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.60 5 9 1 1 3,065 109 96 0.036 0.882 0.031

0.65 17 22 3 3 8,994 180 153 0.020 0.849 0.017

0.70 3 8 0 0 127 7 - 0.054 0.000 0.000

0.75 5 5 0 0 425 19 - 0.045 0.000 0.000

Total 39 57 4 4 14,581 361 249 0.025 0.690 0.017

Percent of 

Total 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 173.8 59.4 103.3

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

111

The performance of these policies with respect to loss ratio appears superior to the all policies. 

This appearance is due to two factors: the Endorsement has been available only since 2006 and 

the volume of business in 2006 was negligible. A more direct comparison of loss ratio 

performance is included in Table 31. The data are shown separately for container and field 

grown practices, for the combined data, and are compared against Florida for those same years. 

The simple average of the loss ratios provides the best comparison due to the differences in the 

dollar weighting of the data for the Endorsement relative to the data for all policies. As these 

data indicate, the loss ratio for policies with the Endorsement may have been slightly better than 

all policies in Florida for these years. 

Table 31. Loss Ratio Comparisons for Policies 

with Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 

Year

Container Field Grown Combined Florida

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Loss Ratio

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Loss Ratio Loss Ratio Loss Ratio

2006 463 2,987 6.445 - - 0.000 6.445 5.799

2007 8,969 963 0.107 104 112 1.078 0.118 0.486

2008 10,535 1,157 0.110 53 - 0.000 0.109 0.065

2009 7,181 1,940 0.270 86 - 0.000 0.267 0.532

2010 9,219 2,559 0.278 26 137 5.308 0.292 0.661

2011 7,798 295 0.038 92 - 0.000 0.037 0.078

Total 44,166 9,901 0.224 361 249 0.690 0.228 0.711

Average 1.067 1.011 1.190

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 

Peak Endorsement, Price Endorsement, and Rehabilitation Endorsement 

A total of eight policies with nine units had all three Endorsements in effect between 2007 and 

2010. Four such policies earned premium in 2007, one in 2008, one in 2009, and two in 2010. 

No such policy earned premium in 2011. The limited amount of experience of these policies is 

included in Table 32. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

112

Table 32. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice with Peak Endorsement, Price 

Endorsement, and Rehabilitation Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.50 1 1 0 0 138 3 0 0.024 - -

0.55 - - - - - - - - - -

0.60 3 4 0 0 785 18 0 0.022 - -

0.65 - - - - - - - - - -

0.70 4 4 0 0 12,841 510 0 0.040 - -

0.75 - - - - - - - - - -

Total 8 9 0 0 13,764 531 0 0.039 - -

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

113

Peak Endorsement and Rehabilitation Endorsement 

A small number of policies representing 247 units chose this combination of Endorsements 

between 2006 and 2011. Most chose the highest coverage levels, which was where all the losses 

occurred. However, both the premium and the indemnity were less than $100,000. The data are 

contained in Table 33. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

114

Table 33. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Field Grown Practice 

with Peak Endorsement and Rehabilitation Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units Insured Policies 

Indemnified

Units 

Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.50 9 11 0 0 2,188 30 - 0.014 - -

0.55 3 5 0 0 603 9 - 0.014 - -

0.60 11 25 0 0 4,705 69 - 0.015 - -

0.65 6 10 0 0 976 29 - 0.029 - -

0.70 48 159 4 8 39,412 559 732 0.014 1.309 0.019

0.75 12 37 1 2 1,309 22 85 0.017 3.905 0.065

Total 89 247 5 10 49,193 717 817 0.015 1.140 0.017

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

115

Peak Endorsement and Price Endorsement 

The sole remaining group of policies with a combination of Endorsements was a group of 

container practice units with both the Peak Endorsement and the Price Endorsement. As in the 

other cases where Endorsements were combined, few policies and units were involved. The data 

for this group are included in Table 34. This particular combination first was reported in 2006, 

the first year the Price Endorsement was offered. Market penetration peaked in 2007 with 62 

units and about $54 million of liability. Business has decreased since, to 13 units in 2010 and 18 

units in 2011. This group of policies accounted for very little premium or indemnity. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

116

Table 34. Summary of Business Data by Coverage Level for Container Practice 

with Peak Endorsement and Price Endorsement Nursery 2006 through 2011 

Coverage 

Level

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

Policies 

Indemnified Units Indemnified

Liability 

(1,000 

dollars)

Premium 

(1,000 

dollars)

Indemnity 

(1,000 

dollars)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate

Loss Ratio Loss Cost 

Ratio

0.50 5 12 1 1 619 5 8 0.008 1.600 0.013

0.55 4 4 0 0 6,270 209 0 0.033 0.000 0.000

0.60 10 29 0 0 7,255 173 0 0.024 0.000 0.000

0.65 18 56 1 1 10,616 293 78 0.028 0.267 0.007

0.70 47 93 2 3 118,403 6,600 30 0.056 0.005 0.000

0.75 3 11 1 1 245 9 10 0.037 1.140 0.042

Total 87 205 5 6 143,407 7,289 126 0.051 0.017 0.001

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

117

Review of Causes of Loss

A total of 18 causes of loss were coded for indemnities paid to policyholders who insured the 

container practice (Table 35). Three causes – hurricane, freeze, and excess moisture in order of 

importance – constituted 86 percent of the policies indemnified.61 These three causes of loss 

accounted for 89 percent of the indemnities (Table 36). A fourth cause of loss – flood –

accounted for only about three percent of policies indemnified but was nearly equal in terms of 

the amount of indemnities with excess moisture. Most of the flood indemnities were paid in 

2001. Indemnities were paid for the other causes of loss nearly every year. One cause of loss, 

drought, does not appear reasonable for the container practice. Fortunately, the amounts of 

indemnities associated with drought are small. 

 

61 A policy may have more than one cause of loss code associated with a loss event. Hence, the numbers of policies indemnified 

as reported in these tables do not conform to the numbers reported earlier. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

118

Table 35. Number of Policies Indemnified by Year and Cause of Loss Container Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011

Cause of Loss 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

Cold Wet Weather - - - - 9 1 1 - 3 - - - - 14

Cold Winter - - 9 5 8 - 1 1 5 1 1 1 - 32

Drought 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 1 1 - - - 6

Excess Moisture 2 16 70 46 52 18 20 - 15 13 7 2 - 261

Failure Irrigation Supply 3 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 4

Fire - - - - 1 1 - - - 1 - - - 3

Flood 2 - 65 4 2 - - - - - 1 - - 74

Freeze 11 1 73 16 46 2 3 16 59 32 50 107 42 458

Frost - 1 1 1 10 1 - 1 13 2 1 - - 31

Hail 2 4 2 1 6 2 3 - 3 - 1 7 - 31

Heat 4 1 2 3 2 - 2 - 1 3 - - - 18

Hurricane 8 147 6 1 3 276 396 449 1 - 14 - - 1,301

Insects 1 1 - 1 1 1 2 - - 1 - - - 8

Other - - - 3 2 2 - - - - 1 1 - 9

Plant Disease 3 1 5 6 7 3 3 - 4 6 2 1 - 41

Tornado - - 1 - 1 - - 2 2 1 - 2 - 9

Wildlife - 1 2 - - - - 3 - 1 - 1 - 8

Wind 4 - 3 6 2 3 2 - 4 8 2 - 1 35

Total 41 174 240 93 153 310 433 473 111 70 80 122 43 2,343

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

119

Table 36. Indemnities ($1,000) by Year and Cause of Loss Container Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Cause of Loss 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

Cold Wet Weather - - - - 335 6 48 - 1,465 - - - - 1,854

Cold Winter - - 120 168 86 - 12 3 657 129 3 89 - 1,267

Drought 21 - 6 - 19 - - 0 3 6 - - - 55

Excess Moisture 202 1,233 9,947 4,731 2,900 827 841 - 1,637 707 345 62 - 23,432

Failure Irrigation Supply 10 7 - - - - - - - - - - - 17

Fire - - - - 98 42 - - - 569 - - - 710

Flood 221 - 19,225 1,139 1,923 - - - - - 20 - - 22,527

Freeze 1,402 - 6,814 617 2,819 17 40 10,471 5,811 1,560 2,600 7,045 1,599 40,796

Frost - 1 163 15 2,039 8 - 1 359 16 123 - - 2,726

Hail 155 190 73 15 6,746 464 468 - 664 - 27 861 - 9,664

Heat 501 22 60 17 3,213 - 18 - 97 6 - - - 3,935

Hurricane 1,286 27,371 938 76 53 41,250 111,943 154,912 101 - 3,166 - - 341,097

Insects 14 21 - 104 134 - 1,553 - - 56 - - - 1,882

Other - - - 815 214 43 - - - - 1 208 - 1,281

Plant Disease 350 17 136 263 167 177 30 - 270 378 65 39 - 1,894

Tornado - - 169 - 34 - - 1,225 143 - - 376 - 1,946

Wildlife - 3 3 - - - - 113 - 6 - 11 - 135

Wind 24 - 46 683 62 148 25 - 120 436 59 - 98 1,700

Total 4,186 28,866 37,701 8,643 20,842 42,982 114,978 166,725 11,328 3,870 6,410 8,690 1,697 456,919

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

120

As demonstrated in Table 15, Florida accounted for the majority of the indemnities for container 

practice, with Tennessee being the next highest, but a distant second. Table 37 includes the 

indemnities by year for the container practice for the state of Florida. Note that losses were 

coded to hurricane in all but four years and to freeze in all but one of these years. This exceeds 

the actual frequency of these events in the state. Nearly two-thirds of all indemnities in Florida 

were paid in 2005 and 2006, both of which were years of significant hurricane activity. 

Hurricane is easily the most frequently cited cause of loss in an indemnity scenario, which is 

interesting given the fact that hurricanes are generally restricted to limited regions of the country. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

121

Table 37. Indemnities by Year and Cause of Loss Container Practice Nursery State of Florida 1999 through 2011

Cause of Loss 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

Cold Wet Weather - - - - 297 6 48 - 1,465 - - - - 1,816

Cold Winter - - 46 168 81 - - 3 657 129 3 - - 1,087

Drought - - 6 - 19 - - 0 3 6 - - - 34

Excess Moisture 202 1,233 9,521 4,731 2,892 751 722 - 894 707 345 0 - 21,999

Failure Irrigation Supply - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - 7

Fire - - - - 98 42 - - - - - - - 140

Flood 193 - 19,225 1,116 1,826 - - - - - 20 - - 22,380

Freeze 31 - 6,756 565 2,819 13 25 9,874 2,172 1,547 2,569 7,001 1,599 34,970

Frost - 1 163 15 1,586 8 - 1 359 16 123 - - 2,273

Hail - 22 47 - 3 - - - 345 - - 26 - 444

Heat 0 22 - - 2 - - - - - - - - 24

Hurricane 940 27,371 938 - 6 41,097 111,007 154,912 101 - 2,466 - - 338,838

Insects - 21 - 104 134 0 1,553 - - 56 - - - 1,868

Other - - - 812 214 25 - - - - - 208 - 1,258

Plant Disease 350 17 136 263 167 173 3 - 270 378 2 - - 1,760

Tornado - - 169 - - - - 1,030 143 - - 376 - 1,717

Wildlife - 3 3 - - - - 69 - 6 - 11 - 91

Wind 5 - 27 679 62 143 25 - 46 436 47 - - 1,470

Total 1,721 28,698 37,037 8,454 10,206 42,258 113,384 165,890 6,455 3,282 5,574 7,622 1,599 432,178

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

122

Tabular data for Tennessee will not be included herein. One-half of all indemnities were paid for 

hail as a cause of loss, with heat being in second place at 31 percent, and freeze in third place at 

15 percent. About three-fourths of all indemnities for container practice were paid in 2003. No 

indemnities were paid in 2000, 2004, or 2008 to 2011. This pattern of loss experience appears 

more consistent with the expected nature of experience for a product with extensive management 

requirements. 

The data for field grown practice are similar to those for container practice. Again, there were 

18 causes of loss coded for these years. The only difference between field grown and container 

practices is the elimination of fire as a cause of loss and the introduction of hot wind. Again, 

three causes of loss – hurricane, excess moisture, and hail – accounted for more than 80 percent 

of the policies indemnified (84 percent, nearly the same percentage as container practice for the 

three most frequently entered loss codes). About 91 percent of the indemnities were paid under 

these three loss codes. The three primary loss codes accounted for nearly the same percentage of 

total indemnities. The data for field grown practice are included in Tables 38 and 39.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

123

Table 38. Number of Policies Indemnified by Year and Cause of Loss Field Grown Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011

Cause of Loss 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

Cold Wet Weather - - - - 2 - - - 1 - - - - 3

Cold Winter - - 1 - 2 1 - - 1 1 1 - - 7

Drought 4 1 1 - - - 2 - 1 - 2 - 5 16

Excess Moisture - 1 10 5 4 5 9 - 1 3 5 1 - 44

Failure Irrigation Supply 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 2

Flood 2 - 6 - 2 6 1 1 2 - 1 - 1 22

Freeze 3 1 21 9 10 2 - 11 143 10 43 72 9 334

Frost - - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - 3

Hail 1 1 7 4 19 5 16 34 9 4 3 7 2 112

Heat 3 - - - 1 1 - - - 7 3 1 - 16

Hot Wind - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2

Hurricane 2 30 - - 2 158 87 185 1 - 17 - - 482

Insects - - - - 2 2 - - - 3 14 - - 21

Other - - - 1 - - - - - 2 - - - 3

Plant Disease - - 3 - - - - - 1 - - 1 - 5

Tornado - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - 3

Wildlife - - 2 2 2 2 1 1 - - - 1 - 11

Wind 1 - 1 1 - 5 1 - 4 1 6 - - 20

Total 17 36 54 22 49 187 117 232 164 32 96 83 17 1,106

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

124

Table 39. Indemnities by Year and Cause of Loss Field Grown Practice Nursery 1999 through 2011 

Cause of Loss 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

Cold Wet Weather - - - - 18 - - - 17 - - - - 36

Cold Winter - - 11 - 12 1 - - 10 167 3 - - 203

Drought 138 4 9 - - - 35 - 108 - 27 - 925 1,246

Excess Moisture - 484 421 130 612 349 298 - 24 37 9,074 1 - 11,431

Failure Irrigation Supply - 29 - - - - - - - - - - - 30

Flood 402 - 401 - 112 468 3 35 54 - 89 - 18 1,583

Freeze 70 1 1,758 258 191 92 - 495 25,280 563 12,006 22,308 440 63,463

Frost - - 8 - 597 - - - - - - - - 605

Hail 1,090 109 1,589 94 3,332 1,047 2,716 7,498 6,394 355 323 7,701 786 33,037

Heat 179 - - - 80 877 - - - 181 55 8 - 1,380

Hot Wind - 3 32 - - - - - - - - - - 35

Hurricane 101 17,604 - - 19 36,603 19,083 77,965 11 - 2,158 - - 153,544

Insects - - - - 256 125 - - - 407 4,133 - - 4,921

Other - - - 8 - - - - - 130 - - - 138

Plant Disease - - 96 - - - - - 20 - - 186 - 303

Tornado - - - - 39 - - - - 97 116 - - 252

Wildlife - - 37 17 26 138 54 - - - - 3 - 276

Wind 4 - 9 24 - 820 - - 104 30 191 - - 1,182

Total 1,985 18,235 4,371 532 5,295 40,521 22,190 85,994 32,023 1,968 28,174 30,207 2,168 273,664

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

125

Florida again accounted for the majority of the indemnities for the practice and Tennessee again 

was second. Over three-fourths of the indemnities in Florida were for hurricane with freeze 

accounting for most of the remainder. There were fewer years with losses due to hurricane than 

was the case with container practice. Similar to the container practice, most of these indemnities 

were paid in 2004 to 2006 (Table 40). 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

126

Table 40. Indemnities ($1,000) by Year and Cause of Loss Field Grown Practice Nursery State of Florida 1999 through 2011

Cause of Loss 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

Cold Wet Weather N/A - - - 16 - - - - - - - - 16

Cold Winter N/A - 11 - - - - - 10 - - - - 21

Drought N/A 4 9 - - - 4 - - - - - - 16

Excess Moisture N/A - 421 97 572 - 108 - 24 25 8,685 1 - 9,934

Flood N/A - 401 - 15 - - - - - - - - 417

Freeze N/A - 391 18 162 - - 344 305 424 11,499 18,613 440 32,196

Frost N/A - 8 - - - - - - - - - - 8

Hail N/A - - - - - - - 80 34 - - - 114

Hot Wind N/A - 32 - - - - - - - - - - 32

Hurricane N/A 17,604 - - - 34,802 18,838 77,965 - - 2,148 - - 151,357

Insects N/A - - - 256 - - - - 244 - - - 499

Plant Disease N/A - 46 - - - - - 20 - - 186 - 252

Tornado N/A - - - - - - - - 97 - - - 97

Wind N/A - 9 24 - 303 - - 89 - 24 - - 448

Total N/A 17,608 1,327 139 1,021 35,105 18,950 78,309 529 823 22,356 18,800 440 195,407

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after RMA insurance experience data. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

127

Summary of the Experience Analysis 

Nursery constitutes a small part of the total crop insurance program except for its share of the 

total liability. During the period from 1999 to 2010, nursery averaged six percent of the total 

program liability, but only 0.3 percent of policies earning premium, 0.2 percent of units earning 

premium, and 1.2 percent of premiums earned. A very high percentage of business under the 

Nursery Program is at the CAT level of coverage. This pattern is similar for both container and 

field grown practices. The container practice was the most frequently insured practice, with 

nearly 36,000 policy-years of experience. The loss ratio for the entire program was less than 

1.00, but the loss ratio for the field grown practice was over 1.00. Nonetheless, nursery also had 

a very small share of the indemnities paid by the crop insurance program in total. Less than 0.1 

percent of policies and units earning premium were indemnified. Nursery indemnities 

constituted 1.6 percent of all indemnities paid by the crop insurance program between 1999 and 

2010. Hurricane, freeze, and excess moisture accounted for 86 percent of the policies 

indemnified and 89 percent of the indemnity value. Flood accounted for only about three percent 

of policies indemnified but the amount of indemnities associated with flood was nearly equal to 

the indemnities paid for excess moisture. A Peak Inventory Endorsement, a Nursery Grower’s 

Price Option, and a Rehabilitation Endorsement are offered under the Nursery Program. The 

volume of business under these optional plans is small, in part because of restrictions on their 

purchase. 

VII.B. Rating Review 

This section of the report provides a comprehensive premium rate review for the Nursery 

Program. Pursuant to the requirements of the Program Evaluation Handbook: 

“The focus of this evaluation component shall be on the adequacy and credibility 

of the premium rates relative to the insurance experience of the program and 

information regarding the inherent variability (risk of loss) for the crop, given the 

plan of insurance.”62

The review compares the current premium rate structure to the historical loss experience. The 

container and field grown practices are considered separately. 

Introduction 

The analysis for this premium rate review evaluates what happened from 1999 through 2011 

(i.e., the actual experience) as well as simulating what would have happened from 1999 through 

2011 at 2012 premium rate levels (i.e., simulated experience). Historical loss ratios adjusted to 

2012 premium levels are credibility weighted and recommendations for rate adjustments are 

provided on a practice and state-by-state basis. The Contractor recommends very modest (+/- 5 

percent) adjustments to rate levels in most states. More substantial rate level increases (greater 

than ten percent) are indicated for five states for the container grown practice and nine states for 

field grown practice. 

The next section of this report, Historical Performance provides a review of the Nursery Program 

experience data. A section entitled Regional Analysis includes a spatial evaluation of 

participation and indemnity patterns in the Nursery Program. Credibility and rate adjustment 

analysis as well as expected changes in program costs due to changes to the rate structure are 

 

62 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC-22010 (09-2005), p.19. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

128

discussed in a section entitled Proposed Premium Rate Adjustments and a section entitled Effects 

on Program Costs, which demonstrates changes in costs that would be likely if proposed rate 

adjustments were adopted. A final section, Concluding Remarks, summarizes the premium rate 

sufficiency analysis. 

Historical Performance 

The historical program experience is discussed in the overall framework while evaluating any 

differences in experience between the field grown and container practices. Historical loss ratio, 

liability, earned premium rate, frequency of indemnity payments (policy level), and average 

severity of indemnity payments (policy level) are presented in Figures 1 through 5. Figure 1 

provides the annual loss ratio for each nursery practice. 

Figure 1. Annual Loss Ratio

Crop year 2006 was a large loss year driven by a hurricane event in Florida. The field grown 

practice has experienced loss ratios greater than those of the container practice in three of the 

past five years, and was much higher in all three of those years. The next two figures, Figure 2 

and Figure 3, show annual liability and earned premium rate, respectively. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year Loss Ratio

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

129

Figure 2. Annual Liability

Figure 3. Annual Earned Premium Rate

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Liability ($1,000)

All Nursery Container Field Grown

-

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Earned Premium ($) per Dollar of Liability

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

130

The patterns in year-to-year changes in liability and earned premium rate are similar for field 

grown and container practices. Annual liability slowly increased from 1999 to 2008 and 

declined since 2008. Earned premium rates have been fairly constant (the dip in 2006 was due to 

a structural change in the Nursery Program) with a small increase for field grown starting in 

2007 and a relatively larger increase for the container practice, also in 2007. 

The next two figures depict the frequency and severity of indemnity payments per policy. 

Trends in either of these attributes may indicate underlying changes in the insured pool or 

changes to the nature of the insured risk. 

Figure 4. Frequency of Indemnity Payments

-

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year Frequency of Payments - Policy Level

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

131

Figure 5. Average Severity of Indemnity Payments

The frequency and severity of indemnity payments do not demonstrate trend or indicate a change 

in the insured pool during the time period 1999 though 2011. Both fluctuate substantially from 

year to year, a characteristic that is to be expected in an insurance program of this nature (i.e., a 

program whose indemnities result primarily from infrequent major weather events). 

Participation in the Nursery Program at CAT coverage levels is substantial and may mask 

significant information about the performance of additional coverage. The following figures, 

Figures 6 through 10, show program experience at additional coverage levels from 1999 through 

2011.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Severity of Payments ($1,000) - Policy Level

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

132

Figure 6. Annual Loss Ratio at Additional Coverage Levels

The loss ratios from 1999 through 2011 at additional coverage levels for the Nursery Program, 

field grown practice, and container practice are 1.73, 2.34, and 1.54, respectively. These loss 

ratios indicate an increase in rate levels may be warranted, a matter to be examined in more 

detail in a subsequent part of this section. 

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year Loss Ratio

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

133

Figure 7. Annual Liability at Additional Coverage Levels

The extent of CAT coverage is shown in the magnitude of the difference of the y-axis in Figures 

2 and 7. With CAT included (Figure 2) the 2011 total liability was roughly $2.3 billion and 

liability at additional coverage levels in 2011 was roughly $620 million. Container liability at 

additional coverage levels is as proportionally similar to field grown as it was it was when CAT 

coverage was included in the analysis. Additional liability increased from 1999 through 2008 

and declined following 2008, following the same pattern exhibited by the total program. 

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Liability ($1,000)

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

134

Figure 8. Annual Earned Premium Rate at Additional Coverage Levels

A change in the relative level of rates for field grown and container practices occurred starting 

with the 2007 crop year. The difference appears to be due primarily to the introduction of the 

Nursery Grower’s Pilot Price Endorsement. Although the Endorsement had relatively small 

participation (see Table 28), it had significantly higher earned premium rates. Base premium 

rates published in the actuarial documents did not change materially between 2005 and 2007.63

 

The Endorsement is the only major change that can explain this movement in the earned 

premium rates. 

The frequency and severity of indemnity payments at the policy level are shown in Figures 9 and 

10, respectively. 

 

63 The comparison is between 2005 and 2007 due to the artificially low earned premium rate for 2006. 

-

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Earned Premium ($) per Dollar of Liability

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

135

Figure 9. Annual Indemnity Frequency at Additional Coverage Levels

Figure 10. Annual Indemnity Average Severity at Additional Coverage Levels

-

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

0.450

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year Frequency of Payments - Policy Level

All Nursery Container Field Grown

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Severity of Payments ($1,000) - Policy Level

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

136

The frequency and severity of indemnity payments for policies purchasing coverage at additional 

levels do not show a trend or a structural change during the 1999 to 2011 time period. 

The next group of figures, Figures 11 through 14, estimate the earned premium rates and loss 

ratios that would have been observed had the 2012 premium rate levels been in effect for the 

entire time period. An evaluation of the current premium rate structure requires the historical 

program premiums to be translated to current year values. In addition to restating the premium 

rates, historical loss ratios are re-calculated. Liability and indemnity payments are not adjusted. 

Figure 11 depicts re-stated earned premium rates and Figures 12 through 14 provide loss ratios 

restated to 2012 premium rate levels. The observed loss ratios are included for comparison. 

Figure 11. Annual Earned Premium Rate at Additional Coverage Levels Restated to 2012 

Premium Rate Levels

The container practice has a substantially higher average earned premium rate than the field 

grown practice at 2012 rate levels. 

-

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Earned Premium ($) per Dollar of Liability

All Nursery Container Field Grown
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

137

Figure 12. Annual Loss Ratio Comparison for all Practices Restated to 2012 Premium 

Rates – Nursery

Since the 2012 average premium rates are lower than those observed during the historical period, 

the annual loss ratios increase relative to the actual values observed. Figures 13 and 14 

demonstrate that this outcome is true for both the field grown and container practices. 

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Loss Ratio

Adjusted Premium Rates Historical
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

138

Figure 13. Annual Comparison Actual Loss Ratio to Loss Ratio with Premium Rate 

Re-stated to 2012 Level – Field Grown

After adjusting historical premium rates to 2012 levels, the simulated historical loss ratios are 

substantially higher, particularly in 2006. This provides evidence that current rate levels may not 

be adequate for the underlying risk associated with the program, plus reasonable reserve. 

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Loss Ratio

Adjusted Premium Rates Historical
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

139

Figure 14. Annual Comparison Actual Loss Ratio to Loss Ratio with Premium Rate 

Re-stated to 2012 Level – Container

The actual loss ratios and the loss ratios re-stated to the 2012 rate levels are similar for the 

container practice excepting the 2006 crop year. As shown in Figure 11 the container practice 

has substantially higher average premium rate levels than the field grown practice. The higher 

average premium rate (i.e., the denominator in the loss ratio calculation) restricts the amount of 

possible increase in the loss ratio. 

Regional Analysis 

Analysis to this point has looked at the Nursery Program nationally. Further analysis of the 

program will focus on county- and state-level insurance experience. The top 3 nursery states of 

Florida, California, and Oregon comprised over 40 percent of the program liability from 1999 

through 2011. Florida made up over 85 percent of the paid indemnity. 

Evaluation of participation, liability, and loss ratios from 1999 through 2011 are provided in 

county-level national maps depicted in Figures 15 and 16. The analysis includes both CAT and 

additional coverage types. Figure 15 shows policies earning premium from 1999 through 2011 

(cumulative) and Figure 16 shows policies earning premium for the 2011 reinsurance year. 

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Loss Ratio

Adjusted Premium Rates Historical
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

140

Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 

1999 - 2011

Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 

2011

The number of counties with at least one policy earning premium between 1999 through 2011 is 

greater than the number of counties with at least one policy earning premium in 2011, which is 

consistent with the declining participation since 2008 as demonstrated in Figure 2. Figure 17 

shows cumulative liability for years 1999 through 2011 and Figure 18 presents liability for crop 

year 2011. 

Figure 17. Liability 1999 - 2011 Figure 18. Liability 2011

Liability has been concentrated in Florida, California, and Oregon from 1999 through 2011 and 

this continued in the 2011 crop year. The next set of maps show indemnities paid and loss ratios 

from 1999 through 2011. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

141

Figure 19. Indemnities Paid 1999 - 2011 Figure 20. Loss Ratio 1999 - 2011

Cumulative loss ratios at the state level for 1999 though 2011 are shown in Figure 21. 

Figure 21. State Loss Ratios 1999 – 2011

Florida makes up roughly 25 percent of program liability from 1999 through 2011. Florida 

county-level maps for policies earning premium, liability, indemnities, and loss ratio are 

provided in Figures 22 through 25. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

142

Figure 22. Florida Policies Earning 

Premium 1999 - 2011

Figure 24. Florida Indemnities Paid 

1999 - 2011

Figure 23. Florida Liability 1999 – 2011

Figure 25. Florida Loss Ratios 

1999 – 2011

Analysis of historical loss ratios after adjusting premiums for additional level policies to 2012 

premium levels indicates that premium rates may not be sufficient to cover expected losses. 

However, 1999 through 2011 is a limited time period considering the pattern of expected losses 

for the Nursery Program and it may be that the 13-year period has included unusually severe 

events. A Florida hurricane event, for example, may be over-weighted in the experience data. 

The following section utilizes classical credibility analysis to determine the weight to apply to 

observed data relative to the existing rate structure. Credibility weighted rate adjustments are 

proposed on a practice and state-by-state basis. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

143

Proposed Premium Rate Adjustments 

The Contractor notes in Figure 6 that premium rates did not cover indemnity payments for 

policies with additional coverage levels from 1999 through 2011. Furthermore, re-statement of 

historical premiums at 2012 rate levels increased the amount by which indemnities out-paced 

premiums (Figure 12). This indicates current rate levels may not adequately represent the 

underlying risk. However, the short-term nature of the years 1999 to 2011 may mean severe 

events are either over- or under-represented in the data sample. A decision regarding the amount 

of “weight” or credibility to assign to the experience data relative to the existing rate structure 

needs to be determined. The blending of the current rate structure with historical performance 

data should improve the accuracy of premium rates. 

Actuarial Standards of Practice 25 defines credibility as “... a measure of the predictive value in 

a given application that the actuary attaches to a particular body of data.”64 Classical credibility 

theory (also referred to as limited fluctuation credibility) is used to determine a weight to attach 

to historical program performance when estimating adjustments to the premium rates for an 

insurance program. 

For the purpose of determining credibility, an observation is defined as a county/year 

combination. If there were 5 counties in a state with policies earning premium for 10 years, the 

total observation count for that state would be 50. The basic approach to classical credibility is 

shown is Equation (1.1) 

AdjustmentFactor Z ObservedExperience Z InitialEstimate        1

 (1.1) 

where Z is the credibility estimate, ObservedExperience is the loss ratio from 1999 through 2011 

after adjusting to 2012 rate levels, and the IntialEstimate is a loss ratio of 1 (i.e. current premium 

rate levels are set appropriately).65

There are two steps to calculate the credibility value Z. The first step is to estimate n, the 

number of observations required for full credibility (full credibility means program experience 

would entirely dictate the rate level) and the second step is to apply the “square-root rule” and 

calculate Z. 

Estimating the full credibility value requires a determination of the expected accuracy of the 

estimate (e.g. that there be a 90 percent probability of being within 5 percent of the expected 

mean) and a measure of the underlying coefficient of variation of the data series. The coefficient 

of variation (CV) of the underlying data series is used so there is a direct relationship between 

the CV and n. A more variable underlying series requires more observations for full credibility. 

The data series in this case is the set of annual loss ratio estimates for each county in a state for 

which a policy earned premium in a given year. The mean loss ratio and standard deviation of 

the loss ratios are weighted with the earned premium in the given county for a given year relative 

to the total premium in the state from 1999 through 2011. The weight w for county i in year t is 

determined as 

 

64 ASOP 25 reference 

65 A thorough discussion of limited fluctuation credibility can be found in Chapter 20 of “Loss Models” Third Edition (2008) by 

Klugman, Panjer, and Willmont. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

144

2011

1999 1

i

i t

t I

i

t

t i

Premium

w

Premium

 



 

(1.2) 

where i is the total number of counties in the state. The weighted mean loss ratio for a state,

 , 

is calculated as the sum of the product of the loss ratio in county i in year t and the weight from 

Equation (1.2). 

2011

1999 1

I

i i

t t

t i

 lossRatio w

 

   

(1.3) 

The premium weighted variance (for ease of presentation the loss ratio is noted as x and the 

across county and temporal summations are indicated as summing i through N) is calculated as: 

   

2

2

2

2 1 1 1 1

2 2

1 2 2

1 1 1 1

N N N N

i i i i i i N

i i i i

i i N N N N

i

i i i i

i i i i

w x w w x w

w x E x

w w w w



   



   

 

       

    

   

         

   



   

 (1.4) 

A base threshold of 1,082.41 observations is set due to the choice of 90 percent probability of 

being within 5 percent of the expected value (the value is derived assuming normality). This 

base threshold is multiplied by the square of the coefficient of variation. For example, the 

Florida container practice has a mean loss ratio of 2.022 and a standard deviation of 4.5576 

which leads to a full credibility observation count of 

2

4.5576 1082.41 5,499.26

2.022

n

 

      

(1.5) 

Applying the square root rule with 495 observations for the Florida container practice yields a Z 

value calculated as 

495 0.30

5499.26

Z  

(1.6) 

This means that a 30 percent weight is applied to the experience loss ratio and 70 percent weight 

is applied to the existing rate (i.e. no change). The program experience adjusted to 2012 rate 

levels indicates an average loss ratio of 2.022. When adjusted to account for a reasonable 

reserve by dividing by 0.88, the indicated rate adjustment is calculated as66

2.022 0.30 1 (1 0.30) 1.3893

0.88

Adj     

(1.7) 

 

66 The weighted average loss ratio is adjusted to account for a disaster reserve target which is equal to the average loss costs / 

0.88. See pages 31-32 of “A Comprehensive Review of the RMA APH and COMBO Rating Methodology” for further details. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

145

The result of Equation (1.7) indicates a 39 percent increase in premium rates for the Florida 

Nursery container practice would be appropriate under actuarial theory. 

Tables 41 and 42 include the calculation inputs and rate adjustment factors for the container and 

field grown practices. If a state has not had any loss events, meaning it has a zero standard 

deviation in loss ratio outcomes, the reviewer set the coefficient of variation to the average of 

states with a non-zero standard deviation, 8.65 for the container practice and 5.57 for the field 

grown practice. The tables are organized to depict the estimated premium rate adjustment factor 

from low to high. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

146

Table 41. Nursery Program Loss Ratio Credibility Summary Table – Container Practice 

State Observations Loss 

Ratio

Loss Ratio 

Standard 

Deviation

Full Credibility 

Observation 

Count

Credibility

Rate 

Adjustment 

Factor

Georgia 141 0.4713 2.5745 32,295.75 0.0661 0.9693

Pennsylvania 87 0.0402 0.3787 96,270.31 0.0301 0.9713

Maryland 66 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0285 0.9715

Minnesota 60 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0272 0.9728

Missouri 49 0.2983 1.6850 34,546.83 0.0377 0.9751

Hawaii 39 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0219 0.9781

Kentucky 21 0.1901 0.9867 29,157.49 0.0268 0.9790

South Carolina 122 0.0313 0.4822 256,366.08 0.0218 0.9790

Arkansas 33 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0202 0.9798

Wisconsin 32 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0199 0.9801

Alabama 89 0.5806 3.1458 31,773.81 0.0529 0.9820

Connecticut 24 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0172 0.9828

Nebraska 24 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0172 0.9828

Ohio 23 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0169 0.9831

Oregon 23 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0169 0.9831

Washington 23 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0169 0.9831

Kansas 19 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0153 0.9847

Massachusetts 18 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0149 0.9851

New York 18 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0149 0.9851

Michigan 16 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0141 0.9859

North Carolina 261 0.7391 4.1800 34,620.13 0.0868 0.9861

Illinois 87 0.0289 0.5996 467,233.27 0.0136 0.9868

Indiana 14 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0131 0.9869

Mississippi 32 0.5249 2.7870 30,509.73 0.0324 0.9869

Virginia 75 0.0011 0.0244 572,700.81 0.0114 0.9886

Arizona 19 0.1889 1.7685 94,839.72 0.0142 0.9889

Delaware 8 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0099 0.9901

Colorado 112 0.7096 4.8903 51,410.54 0.0467 0.9910

New Hampshire 6 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0086 0.9914

Oklahoma 31 0.0614 1.2373 439,449.62 0.0084 0.9922

Idaho 4 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0070 0.9930

North Dakota 4 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0070 0.9930

California 95 0.6903 6.7301 102,897.29 0.0304 0.9934

Maine 3 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0061 0.9939

Rhode Island 2 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0050 0.9950

South Dakota 2 0.0000 0.0000 80,988.62 0.0050 0.9950

Iowa 13 0.3209 7.5661 601,569.23 0.0046 0.9970

New Jersey 9 2.0199 3.7835 3,797.66 0.0487 1.0631

Texas 243 1.4661 6.1606 19,112.16 0.1128 1.0751

Louisiana 45 2.1509 5.9803 8,367.83 0.0733 1.1059

New Mexico 6 4.2834 9.6750 5,522.10 0.0330 1.1275

Tennessee 80 2.7457 12.1570 21,219.26 0.0614 1.1302

Montana 3 5.0547 7.1991 2,195.61 0.0370 1.1754

Florida 495 2.0220 4.5576 5,499.26 0.3000 1.3893

Source: W&A Rating Department 

The adjustment factors range from -3.07 percent for Georgia to +38.93 percent for Florida with 

37 of the 44 states showing a modest decline in premium rates. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

147

Table 42. Nursery Program Loss Ratio Credibility Summary Table – Field Grown Practice 

State Observations Loss 

Ratio

Loss Ratio 

Standard 

Deviation

Full Credibility 

Observation 

Count

Credibility

Rate 

Adjustement 

Factor

Illinois 45 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0366 0.9634

Wisconsin 21 0.1402 0.4669 12,007.53 0.0418 0.9648

Georgia 40 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0345 0.9655

Arizona 19 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0238 0.9762

Kansas 19 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0238 0.9762

Oregon 14 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0204 0.9796

Hawaii 13 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0197 0.9803

New Mexico 13 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0197 0.9803

Pennsylvania 13 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0197 0.9803

Arkansas 12 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0189 0.9811

Montana 12 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0189 0.9811

Idaho 10 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0173 0.9827

Michigan 10 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0173 0.9827

Minnesota 63 0.3236 2.9397 89,335.30 0.0266 0.9832

Maryland 9 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0164 0.9836

Massachusetts 6 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0134 0.9866

Mississippi 6 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0134 0.9866

New York 6 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0134 0.9866

California 41 0.3644 3.3352 90,692.46 0.0213 0.9875

New Jersey 5 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0122 0.9878

Virginia 40 0.0844 1.2853 250,949.00 0.0126 0.9886

New Hampshire 4 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0109 0.9891

Missouri 38 0.3982 4.1650 118,435.04 0.0179 0.9902

Indiana 3 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0095 0.9905

South Carolina 27 0.0155 0.2640 312,569.82 0.0093 0.9909

North Dakota 7 0.5142 1.9714 15,908.32 0.0210 0.9913

Wyoming 2 0.0000 0.0000 33,581.66 0.0077 0.9923

Oklahoma 47 0.7790 2.5735 11,813.49 0.0631 0.9928

Louisiana 9 1.6326 8.1458 26,944.93 0.0183 1.0156

Ohio 22 1.2780 4.5092 13,474.93 0.0404 1.0183

Nebraska 48 2.1890 12.1251 33,209.14 0.0380 1.0566

Iowa 23 3.4186 23.1810 49,770.33 0.0215 1.0620

Alabama 73 2.7766 13.4626 25,446.16 0.0536 1.1154

Texas 112 3.1683 14.9718 24,170.85 0.0681 1.1770

Colorado 132 3.4731 14.8176 19,702.03 0.0819 1.2412

North Carolina 147 2.2655 5.1570 5,608.53 0.1619 1.2549

Kentucky 19 11.1913 20.7379 3,716.72 0.0715 1.8378

Florida 352 4.2175 9.9600 6,036.77 0.2415 1.9158

Tennessee 91 7.0935 11.9051 3,048.90 0.1728 2.2198

Washington 23 12.0765 18.1616 2,448.01 0.0969 2.2333

South Dakota 15 23.6193 31.0604 1,871.86 0.0895 3.3131

Source: W&A Rating Department 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

148

The adjustment factors for the field grown practice range from -3.66 percent for Georgia to 

+313.15 percent for South Dakota with 28 of the 41 states showing a modest decline in rates. 

The next section discusses possible effects on program costs should rates be adjusted as the 

credibility analysis has indicated. 

Effects on Program Costs 

Analysis of the Nursery Program from 1999 through 2011 has indicated that rate increases 

should be implemented in a small number of states while most states should receive modest 

decreases in premium rate levels. However, the states whose history indicates that an increase in 

rate levels is required also tend to be those states with the most premium at additional coverage 

levels in 2011. This has the effect of causing an overall increase in program premium and 

subsidy. Estimates of the affects of proposed rate changes on program costs use 2011 as a base 

year, preserve the premium weighted average subsidy amount from 2011, and show the change 

in program costs if proposed rate changes were to be implemented on the 2011 insured pool. 

Administrative and operating costs are estimated as 21.9 percent of the total premium. 

Table 43. Program Cost Estimates 

Liability Premium Subsidy

SRA 

Administrative 

Costs

(dollars)

Crop Year 2011 - Buy up Coverage Levels 618,629,637 25,033,305 15,310,539 5,482,294

Crop Year 2011 with Premium Rate Changes 618,629,637 36,082,278 22,066,781 7,902,019

Difference 11,048,973 6,756,242 2,419,725

Source: W&A Rating Department 

Proposed adjustments to premium rates are estimated to increase total premium by $11 million, 

which is 43 percent of 2011 premium. However, limitations on year-to-year rate changes 

imposed by RMA will dampen the effect of the proposed rate changes in the initial years of 

implementation. 

Concluding Remarks 

Analysis of the historical experience of the Nursery Program and analysis of what the historical 

experience may have been at 2012 premium rate levels for additional coverage levels leads to the 

conclusion that substantial increases in premium rate levels are warranted for a few state and 

practice combinations, particularly some of the states with the largest participation numbers, and 

modest decreases should be made in premium rate levels for the remaining states. However, it 

may be that events which have a lower frequency have been included in the history used for the 

analysis and therefore increases in premium rates may be overstated. A process which includes 

modest increases in premiums over a period of many years and that can be adjusted as additional 

performance information is gained will limit the effects on producers. It is also worth noting that 

these analyses were made ceteris paribus, without consideration to the many recommended 

changes to underwriting contained in this report. While none of the individual underwriting 

changes recommended are likely to result in substantial changes in frequency or size of 

indemnities, the many changes may have a noteworthy collective impact. This potential also 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

149

argues for scaling in the recommended adjustments over the course of several years to facilitate 

understanding of the compounding effects of the other changes recommended in the report. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

150

SECTION VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This section of the evaluation report addresses the requirement that: 

The eighth section of the report shall contain the conclusions and 

recommendations. Particularly salient conclusions will be whether (1) an 

acceptable insurance risk does or does not exist, and (2) the plan of insurance is 

appropriate for the crop. The recommendations shall be subdivided into 

individual sections dealings with changes in statute, in regulations, in the 

actuarial documents, and in procedures.... If it is concluded that a new (or 

replacement) plan of insurance should be adopted for the crop, recommendations 

of sufficient detail to allow development shall be provided in this section.67

As noted previously, the Nursery Program does not fit the typical ‘mold’ for crop insurance 

programs. The insured plants include hundreds of thousands of species/variety/size/practice 

combinations possessing a multitude of prices. A focus on inventory for a range of items this 

large introduces an almost irrational element of complexity into the purchase of a policy, 

maintenance of acceptable record, and loss adjustment. An acceptable insurance risk does exist 

for nursery crops. The relevant risks for policies, taken as a whole, are characterized by limited 

and localized losses due to isolated events (e.g., fire, landslide, tornadoes, wind sheer, and 

localized flooding or freezes), but include more general (i.e., widespread) risk of losses from 

severe, major loss events like hurricanes and hard freezes. Longer-term climatic risks (drought, 

extended periods of below average temperatures, etc) pose little potential for indemnifiable loss. 

Stakeholder input indicated the nursery industry believes an appropriate insurance coverage plan 

is essential to its long-term survival. However, input from producers and agents suggested at 

least a substantial portion of the decline in participation in the Nursery Program in recent years is 

tied to the perceived “burdensome” requirements associated with the product. This perception is 

not surprising considering the insured plants potentially include hundreds of thousands of 

species/variety/size/practice combinations and associated prices. But the perception the 

insurance approach is burdensome is also driven by the reality that, with rare exceptions, 

nurseries do not maintain a precise inventory of the plants on a nursery operation. Only two 

producers who participated in the listening sessions indicated their inventory systems were 

precise and accurate. Many producers believe their inventories are accurate, but do not measure 

the total value as precisely as the Nursery Program expects and requires (the actual inventory 

may differ from the estimated inventory by plus or minus a percentage that can be as high as the 

ten percent used in the over-reporting factor). Regardless of the level of precision, for many 

operations, and particularly for container operations in Florida, the inventory numbers change 

daily as new plants are purchased or planted and plants already on site are sold. Furthermore, for 

some operations, and particularly for operations structured to produce bedding and landscaping 

plants, inventory turnover of many plant types may occur several times each year. Therefore, 

basing an insurance program on inventory is inherently problematic. 

This is not to say inventory cannot be insured. High value nursery plants (i.e., individual plants 

with a wholesale value in excess of a value such as $25 or $100) are carefully monitored and 

inventoried. But for the bulk of plants on the majority of operations, an insurance approach that 

 

67 USDA, RMA, 2005, Program Evaluation Handbook: 2006 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC – 22010 (09-2005)), pp. 12. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

151

is based on the present detailed inventory listings will be perceived as burdensome, and perhaps 

as unreasonably burdensome. 

This information provides a unique context for the Contractor’s recommendations concerning 

whether the Nursery Program be terminated, replaced, continued with modifications, or 

continued without changes. Producers of nursery plants face production risks that are insurable 

since the existence of an event causing a loss can be established with third party information. 

The industry is a substantial element of the agricultural economy, albeit an element that is 

difficult to quantify precisely. A sufficient number of producers are risk averse, so simply 

terminating the existing Nursery Program is not an option producers (or the insurance industry) 

would welcome. RMA could expect substantial political response to such an action, especially 

considering the distribution of production by state and by county. While such a decision would 

not violate any legislation, various populations of taxpayers would likely feel their safety net was 

being taken away unfairly. 

Considering trends in the level of participation, program complexity, and administrative costs, 

maintaining the current program without changes is unacceptable. As discussed in the program 

component analysis, the Crop Provisions do not clearly define the producer’s responsibilities. At 

a minimum the provisions need to be rewritten and the documents for the program need to be 

more carefully articulated and coordinated. 

That leaves the possibilities of replacing the Nursery Program with one or more other products or 

continuing the current program with modifications as topics for further discussion. The former 

topic is addressed in part in Deliverable 1b. A formal evaluation of the numerous replacement 

options structured according to the guidelines in the Program Evaluation Handbook is beyond 

the scope of this report (i.e., Deliverable 1a). RMA will need to review those alternatives to 

determine if any one or a combination of the approaches provides an acceptable choice for 

further research and development. 

The Contractor believes replacement of the present unwieldy and ill-fitting structure for 

determining liability is an option that should be explored by RMA. The Contractor would 

categorize any crop insurance structure for nursery that significantly modifies the PIVR 

documentation, including any approach that creates a different “acreage report” for nursery 

crops, as a program modification. Modification also introduces the possibility of a suite of 

products (or at least a suite of endorsements) that would better address the risk management 

needs of each disparate sector (i.e., bedding plants, woody landscaping plants, grafted production 

agricultural plants) within the nursery segment of the U.S. agricultural economy. 

Therefore, considering the scope and structure of the contract controlling this evaluation project, 

the remainder of this section of the report will focus on the Contractor’s recommendations 

concerning continuation of the Nursery Program with substantial modifications. 

Recommendations Affecting Statute 

Regarding continuation of the Nursery Program with modifications, the Contractor has no 

recommendation that affects the Federal Crop Insurance Act. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

152

Recommendations Affecting Regulations 

Regarding continuation of the Nursery Program with modifications, the Contractor’s 

recommendation affects the regulations published at 7 CFR 457.162 (the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Provisions). 

Recommendations Affecting Actuarial Documents and Procedures 

Regarding continuation of the Nursery Program with modifications, the Contractor has no 

recommendation that affects any fundamental element of the CIH, the FCI-35 documents, or the 

LAM. Recommendations affecting the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, the LASH, the 

Underwriting Guide, and the LAM to improve clarity and remove ambiguities are incorporated 

here by reference to the preceding component discussions. The Contractor also makes specific 

recommendations concerning determination of rates, insurable practices, loss adjustment 

procedures, and abandoned acreage below. 

Rates

Analysis of the actual and simulated historical experiences of the Nursery Program for additional 

coverage levels leads to the conclusion that substantial increases in premium rate levels are 

warranted for a few state and practice combinations, particularly some of the states with the 

largest participation numbers, and modest decreases should be made in premium rate levels for 

the remaining states. However, inasmuch as events which have a lower frequency have been 

included in the history used for the analysis and therefore increases in premium rates may be 

overstated, the Contractor recommends a process which includes modest increases in premiums 

over a period of many years that can be adjusted as additional performance information is gained 

will limit the effects on producers. 

Added Practice 

The Contractor recommends RMA consider adding Grafting/Grafted Nursery Plants as a practice 

under the Nursery Crop Provisions. The present Nursery Crop Provisions specifically exclude 

stock plants “grown solely for harvest of buds” (08-073 (Rev. 10-06), section 8(i)). Therefore, 

the plants from which the scion is harvested, perhaps the most valuable assets in nursery 

operations that propagate grafted plants, are not insurable. Furthermore, rootstock is generally 

uninsurable in its earliest stages because of size limitations. Finally, when the grafted plants are 

pruned to stimulate growth of the scion the grafted plants are often much less than six inches tall 

and therefore again fall outside the size categories that are insurable. The transition of 

grafting/grafted nursery plants from uninsurable to insurable to uninsurable to insurable 

introduces an unreasonable and unacceptable element of complexity into an already complex 

insurance program. Grafting of and grafted nursery plants play an important role in the U.S. 

food supply. Inasmuch as nursery insurance exists at all, insuring important elements of the 

agricultural economy that addresses food supply is appropriate. Finally, the management 

practices for grafting/grafted nursery plants are better defined than are the practices for many 

nursery crops. Thus barriers to implementing insurance for this practice are neither structural 

nor contrary to legislation.

Loss Adjustment 

The Contractor heard repeatedly that loss adjusters were not aware of nursery practices and could 

therefore not properly adjust losses. This deficiency seems to derive from the need to identify 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

153

the extent of damage on individual plants. The repeated nature of this complaint indicates that 

frequently the requirements of section 7B of the Nursery Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook 

may not be met. 

If the current asset-based insurance is to be maintained, it is essential that the loss adjustment 

processes be changed so those who have suffered a loss believe the outcome of the loss 

adjustment process is fair and reasonable. To this end, the Contractor makes three 

recommendations: 

1. Require that knowledgeable nurserymen be included in the loss adjustment process (the 

present language in section 7B is permissive);

2. Revise the approach for dealing with nursery plants that are perceived to have residual 

value greater than zero; and

3. Add a loss example tool to the portfolio of Nursery Program materials. This tool would 

be structured to allow potential insureds to see the impact of decisions about coverage 

levels and purchase of endorsements on indemnities following various hypothetical loss 

events. 

The Contractor believes the first two of these recommendations are necessary to gain acceptance 

by nursery growers of the validity of loss adjustment determinations. The third is made in the 

interests of better educating nursery growers and agents as to the scope and limitations of nursery 

coverage. 

The Contractor recommends RMA require the incorporation of knowledgeable nurserymen into 

the loss adjustment process. Again and again the Contractor heard about loss adjustment of 

Nursery Program claims performed by adjusters who growers believed had limited or no 

knowledge of the nursery industry (several adjusters were quoted as saying they had no 

experience with nursery crops, worked only with field crops and livestock, or didn’t understand 

what the insured was saying about a damaged plant). One solution to this issue would be to pair 

each adjuster (familiar with crop insurance constructs and provided appropriate training 

concerning the Nursery Program) with a knowledgeable nurseryman (familiar with the nursery 

industry). Obviously, these additional personnel would increase the cost of loss adjustment. 

Nursery production is unique in that the product in many cases is aesthetic. Where a grain or 

fruit crop might have substantial residual value following a loss, an individual nursery plant is 

more often either unaffected or a total loss, and only occasionally is damaged and amenable to 

economically appropriate rehabilitation. Many of the specific complaints the Contractor heard 

concerning loss adjustment reflected misunderstandings arising from adjusters placing plants into 

a category (usually damaged and amenable to rehabilitation) that the insured considered to be 

unreasonable. If RMA chooses to implement this recommendation, the agency could work with 

the American Nursery and Landscape Association or with regional organizations to identify a 

cohort of nurserymen prepared to assist adjusters in the event of a loss event. Obviously, such 

assistance would need to come from disinterested third parties. However, considering the size of 

the nursery sector of the U.S. agricultural economy, an appropriate pool of such individuals 

should be available. 

A common, and related, complaint concerning loss adjustment was the basis for establishing the 

residual value in damaged plants. Many damaged plants have lost all value from the perspective 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

154

of the nursery business, but in adjustment of losses have been judged to have substantial residual 

value. The Contractor recommends that any indemnified plant be considered destroyed. In other 

words, the decisions about loss for any plant would be binary (destroyed or not destroyed). 

Indemnity payments would be made when the indemnified plants are physically destroyed by the 

producer. If the grower believed the damaged plants did in fact have residual value, the producer 

could be given the option of purchasing individual damaged plants rather than destroying those 

plants. A minimum value (such as one-third of the insured value) could be established as a 

threshold for establishing a viable buy-back offer. The adjuster/nurseryman team would have the 

option of refusing the offer. This would align the incentives for pricing the damaged plants to 

accurately reflect the residual value. For container-grown plants, the residual value could be 

recovered by auction or by offer. The former would likely increase the costs of recovery, but 

also result in a higher price for the salvaged plants. The latter would mirror the field-grown 

processes for establishing residual value. 

The Contractor recommends AIPs or RMA develop an MS Excel or online tool to allow 

potential insureds to mine information concerning coverage and indemnities under various 

hypothetical scenarios. In four of the listening sessions producers spoke of being surprised at 

how little insurance protection they had. In one case the loss exceeded $4,000,000 and the 

indemnity check was for less than $10,000. The surprise came following an insurable event, 

during loss adjustment. The Contractor is proposing a relatively simple loss-and-indemnity 

modeling tool that would allow potential insureds to understand better the impact of decisions 

about coverage levels and particularly about purchase of endorsements. Producers of nursery 

plants are not generally familiar with crop insurance constructs and structures. Consequently,

they depend more than most producers on the expertise of agents to understand what they are 

buying. Only a limited number of agents understand the nursery industry or the nursery policy; 

agents generally are ill-equipped to educate producers about the potential consequences of a 

producer’s decisions about coverage levels and endorsements in the specific context of the 

producer’s operation and business structure. A simple tool could be developed to help producers 

understand the limits of coverage under a CAT policy and the costs and benefits of the various 

endorsements. Such a tool would not precisely quantify indemnities. However, it could provide 

illustrations of ranges of indemnities under different scenarios. This information would serve 

both to eliminate some of the surprises concerning the protection actually provided in the event 

of a loss and as a marketing tool for the Nursery Program. The cost of such efforts could be 

controlled if RMA personnel with a working understanding of the Nursery Program developed

substantial elements, or regional versions of the tool. 

Abandoned Acreage 

Following a loss, specific issues arise for producers of field-grown nursery plants because of the 

requirement that all production for a practice be insured. In a field that has suffered substantial 

damage, where a small number of mature plants are being rehabilitated, the production may be 

so sparse as not to justify full management of the field. Producers may be waiting to see what 

develops and to understand better their options with the few salvageable plants remaining in the 

field. Instead of focusing on salvage activity in these severely damaged fields, producers are 

addressing their limited resources to reestablishing the nursery inventory. Both producers and 

knowledgeable agents indicated including the remaining plants in a damaged field as insurable 

production makes no sense from the perspective of managing a nursery business. To address this 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

155

observation, the Contractor recommends producers be allowed to declare fields containing fewer 

plants than the number present under the typical planting density multiplied by some fraction, 

(such as 0.20) as uninsurable. This change would allow a producer to address resources to new 

acreage, and direct the insurance to productive acreage. 

In summary, the Nursery Program should be continued for the near-term with substantial 

modifications as described previously. The insurance documents for this program need to be 

carefully revised to limit conflicts and to assure the policy components provide a clear contract 

understood by both the insured and the insurer. The loss adjustment process needs to be 

modified to assure it is fair and appropriate. Even for the near-term, the Contractor recommends 

the addition of Grafted Production as a practice and a continuous enrollment to address concerns 

about the SCD. While concerns about the offer of CAT coverage raises some important issues, 

the correct recommendation concerning CAT may be masked by the inappropriate rebating of 

commissions that is occurring in some areas. For the near term, the Contractor does not 

recommend eliminating CAT coverage. However, the Contractor does recommend that issue be 

revisited if the current Nursery Program is not replaced by one or more substantially different 

risk management products, such as those discussed in Deliverable 1b. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Deliverable 2b: Final Nursery Program 

Recommended Improvements Report 

Watts and Associates, Inc., as a Contractor, has developed this material under contract with the United States Department of 

Agriculture and has exclusive ownership rights in part or all of its format and content. No material presented in any format, 

including orally, in print, or electronically, or that has been viewed, disseminated, or heard, may be further disseminated to 

any unauthorized person or entity. “Unauthorized person or entity” may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, any 

person who or entity that has no official connection to this project under the Federal government, or has not been authorized 

by Watts and Associates, Inc. to review a portion or all of this material. This material is protected by law.
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

i

Table of Contents 

Section I. Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1

Section II. Introduction ....................................................................................................................3

Section III. Alternatives to the Current Nursery Crop Insurance Program Based 

on Existing Crop Insurance Constructs ...........................................................................5

Section IV. New Plan Alternatives to the Current Nursery Crop Insurance Program ...................10

Section V. Recommendations ........................................................................................................21

List of Tables 

Table 1. Number of Nursery Program Policies Earning Premium and Units Insured: 

1999 to 2011 ....................................................................................................................6
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

1

SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the Contractor’s considerations regarding recommended improvements to 

the Nursery Crop Insurance Program (Nursery Program). The report was produced under 

contract for the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Risk Management Agency 

(RMA). With regard to potential alternative insurance designs for the Nursery Program, the 

Government requested the Contractor both explore alternative crop insurance models that 

conform to existing crop insurance constructs and think outside the conventional crop insurance 

box. 

There was a substantial body of work considered in developing this report. In the first place, the 

Crop Insurance Act (U.S. Code Title 7, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1508 as amended, 

hereinafter the Act) is the controlling legislative language for the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) insurance administered by RMA. A nursery insurance program that does 

not conform to the language of the Act would require legislative action before it could be 

implemented. The Act is the first side of the box in which the current Nursery Program was 

crafted. The Contractor also considered RMA regulations and procedures. The RMA 

regulations constitute a second side of the box in which the current program was crafted. A 

nursery insurance program that does not conform to RMA regulations would require creation of 

appropriate new regulations before it could be implemented. The RMA procedures constitute a 

third side of the box. A nursery insurance program that does not conform to RMA procedures 

would require changes in institutional processes and perhaps in institutional culture before it 

could be implemented. Finally, the Contractor considered RMA’s published criteria for 

feasibility for the development of crop insurance. These constitute the fourth side of the box. To 

some extent, these factors reflect constraints imposed by the Act and by RMA’s procedures and 

regulation. The factors also reflect realities about providing federally subsidized insurance to 

agricultural producers. 

The Contractor considered the possibility of insuring nursery crops under Actual Production 

History (APH), Actual Revenue History (ARH), Dollar, Group Risk (GRP), Group Risk Income 

Protection (GRIP), Revenue Protection (RP) and Revenue Protection with Harvest Price 

Exclusion (RP-HPE).1 Of the insurance plans that currently exist, the Contractor believes only 

ARH could be modified to make it amenable to insuring nurseries. It appears possible to define 

a measure of liability for nursery operations based on historical records of the same type used to 

establish historical revenue for other crops (e.g., cherries). However, it is important to note, 

there is no third party involvement in establishing those records for nursery crops. There would 

be numerous issues to resolve before ARH could become the basis of a new nursery program, 

not the least of which would be providing appropriate underwriting structure in an industry 

characterized by an incredibly wide range of business models (e.g., producing annuals from 

seeds, having a running inventory of trees in a wide range of ages and species, producing grafted 

fruit trees for planting into commercial orchards and groves, and other business structures). 

The nature of “out of the box” thought is less constrained by existing procedures and regulations 

than by logic. However, among the criteria of feasibility constraints there are a number that 

define logical limits on insurance plan development. These include having a mechanism to rate 

 

1

 Certain crop insurance models, such as rainfall index and livestock, were not considered to be applicable to risk management 

for nursery crops under any circumstances and are therefore not addressed in this report. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

2

the insurance, providing reasonable and appropriate underwriting, and having a market for the 

product if it is developed. The Contractor introduces several novel plan approaches for nursery 

and describes benefits and issues with each. The issues are not necessarily insurmountable 

barriers. Instead, some of these issues represent nothing more than topics that require research 

beyond the scope of the current contract. The specific ideas advanced herein are in the nature of 

a “brainstorming” session wherein no ideas are rejected a priori under the expectation that one 

idea, however infeasible, may lead to another idea that does have feasibility. 

The Contractor was not able to identify a magic bullet whose implementation would fix the 

current Nursery Program so participation would reflect broader acceptance of the insurance and 

greater participation at additional coverage levels in lieu of CAT. With the possible exception of 

ARH and possibly AGR, the Contractor was not able to identify an effective alternative crop 

insurance program for nursery based on existing plans of insurance. Even out-of-the-box 

constructs for insuring nursery will require price data that reliably reflect the values of plants 

insured. The variation between and among plants and nursery operations does not permit a 

simple insurance design based on a single price or even a limited number of prices. Of the 

alternatives considered by the Contractor, only the alternative of basing insurance prices on 

actual producer average sales values during a defined time period seems to have any potential for 

eliminating the PPS as a component of the program. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

3

SECTION II. INTRODUCTION 

This report discusses a range of alternatives for modifying the Nursery Program and provides 

considerations with regard to the feasibility of implementing the alternatives and the effect such 

implementation would have on the requirement for a PPS. The Contractor notes that the charge 

given by RMA was not to develop an alternative approach that a priori would be 100 percent 

feasible. Instead, the charge was to develop ideas that could be subject to further analytical work 

which might potentially allow the development of a viable alternative design for nursery crop 

insurance. 

Nursery is a very complex subject for the crop insurance program. As stated in the Nursery Loss 

Adjustment Standards Guide (section 7G(1)), “Market value establishment of nursery plants 

differ [sic] from other crops because market reports that are available for most other insured 

crops are not available for nursery.” The PPS permits a value per insured object, in the manner 

of most insured crops, to be established before insurance attaches. Presently, that value is the 

lesser of the discounted wholesale price in the nursery’s “catalog or price list”2or the price in the 

PPS.

Lack of independent reports of prices when a loss occurs is an impediment to obtaining valid 

values to establish Field Market Value (FMV) A and FMV B. The challenge of developing valid 

values to establish FMV A and FMV B led to disputes and litigation prior to adoption of the 

PPS. Adoption of the PPS has not sufficiently resolved issues of fairness concerning the value of 

the crops in the minds of many nursery growers. Thus, resolving the issues created by the PPS 

involves either: a) finding a valid replacement that allows appropriate determinations of FMV A 

and FMV B consistent with pricing of individual nurseries, or b) devising an insurance model 

that eliminates the need for FMV A and FMV B. There is, of course, a third alternative: 

discontinuing the nursery program. This is a business decision that must be made by RMA. The 

Contractor notes this alternative exists under all scenarios and consequently will not develop any 

discussion regarding it. All discussion will be focused on the first two alternatives. 

There are three important values established in the administration of the current nursery 

program: the basic unit value, FMV A, and FMV B. An original or revised Plant Inventory 

Value Report (PIVR), which is analogous to an acreage report, or an amendment in the form of a 

Peak Inventory Value Report, establishes the 100 percent value of the insured assets (inventory). 

This is the basic unit value. These determinations are made by the insured person via schedules 

that aggregate the numbers of each plant, the sizes of each plant, and the prices of each plant/size 

combination in accordance with defined rules. The PIVR contains the total value of each basic 

unit as derived from these schedules. The AIP may perform an inspection to verify the counts 

and the assignments of value. 

Since the value of the inventory changes during the course of the insurance year (in many cases 

these changes are dramatic), the crop provisions require that FMV A, the actual value of the 

inventory that existed immediately prior to a loss event, be determined. This determination is 

made by the loss adjuster by counting the number of each plant, cataloging the sizes of each 

 

2

 The nursery program uses a cumbersome phrase “catalog or price list” repeatedly throughout the program documents. 

Hereafter, this report uses the term “catalog” to mean any document containing nursery plant prices maintained by a nursery. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

4

plant, and by assigning a price in accordance with the same rules that applied for determining the 

basic unit value. 

FMV B also is determined by the loss adjuster by assessing the percentage of damage to each 

plant using a sample of the plants in the inventory and by calculating a reduced value for the 

damaged plants by making an appropriate reduction to the value assigned in accordance with 

rules used to establish the basic unit value and FMV A. This is the system that would be 

replaced if an alternative insurance design were possible and implemented. 

The Contractor will first consider alternatives to the existing design based on plans of insurance 

RMA currently administers. The Contractor will then consider alternatives to the existing design 

based on new plans of insurance. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

5

SECTION III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT NURSERY CROP INSURANCE 

PROGRAM BASED ON EXISTING CROP INSURANCE CONSTRUCTS 

RMA administers many different insurance plans that provide different types of insurance 

coverage to specific commodities. In the following, the Contractor provides a summary of 

RMA’s description of these insurance plans3and provides an assessment of the potential 

applicability of each to nursery. 

Actual Production History (APH) 

RMA Description: APH policies insure producers against yield4losses due to natural causes 

such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insects, and disease. The producer selects 

the amount of average yield to insure. The producer also selects the percent of the predicted 

price to insure. If the harvested plus any appraised production (per acre) is less than the yield 

insured, the producer is paid an indemnity based on the difference. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: The key words in this description are yield and predicted price. Yield 

is an amount established by dividing the total amount of a standardized measure of physical 

production by a standardized measure of the area used to produce the crop. A standardized 

measure of land area, such as square foot (or yard) is possible for nursery. Although some may 

argue there is no standard for the area used to produce a nursery crop, such a measure would be 

usable as long as an individual nursery continues to maintain consistent use of the land. A 

standardized measure of physical production, such as bushels or tons, most likely is not possible. 

The major flaw for application to nursery in the context being examined is need for a predicted 

price. This is the PPS, the very parameter that RMA seeks to replace. Hence, APH does not 

satisfy the goal sought by RMA. 

Actual Revenue History (ARH) 

RMA Description: The ARH plan of insurance has many parallels to the APH plan of insurance, 

with the primary difference being that instead of insuring historical yields, the plan insures 

historical revenues. It restates many of the APH yield procedures to reflect a revenue product. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: Conceptually, ARH is identical to APH except average dollar revenue 

per acre is substituted for average physical yield per acre. As noted in the discussion of APH, 

the standardized measure called acre could be replaced with a standardized measure called 

square foot (or yard). The measure used to determine the amount of insurance under an ARH 

plan for nursery could be an APH-like value equal to dollars of sales per square foot (yard), 

equal to sales of all plants divided by the number of square feet (yards). This would be the 

greatest level of aggregation. Possibly, sales could be disaggregated among plant types but the 

determination of the number of square feet (yards) devoted to production of specific plants 

within the total inventory may become more problematic. The Contractor notes the number of 

basic units (available by practice for CAT and by practice and type for policies with coverage at 

additional levels) within a typical nursery is relatively small (Table 1). Due to the constraints on 

 

3

 The Contractor has excerpted descriptions of the RMA plans from the USDA, RMA Website at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/. The RMA descriptions have been edited by deleting some information that is not germane 

to establishing liability or determining an indemnity. In some cases, descriptions are combined (e.g., AGR, AGR-Lite) since 

the plans are similar. Other plans, such as livestock, rainfall, and similar plans are excluded from this discussion a priori as 

inapplicable. 

4

 Underscores denote a word or words to which specific emphasis is given by the Contractor. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

6

unit structure for insureds purchasing coverage at the CAT level, this number may not 

appropriately reflect the diversity of many nursery operations. Nonetheless, individual 

operations are much less diverse than is the industry as a whole. 

Table 1. Number of Nursery Program Policies Earning Premium 

and Units Insured: 1999 to 2011 

Crop Year

Policies 

Earning 

Premium

Units 

Insured

1999 2,266 2,282

2000 2,691 2,713

2001 2,870 2,910

2002 3,102 3,142

2003 3,193 3,235

2004 3,278 3,379

2005 3,410 3,499

2006 3,091 5,923

2007 3,175 7,052

2008 3,006 6,742

2009 2,170 5,111

2010 1,889 4,199

2011 1,540 3,634

Totals 35,681 53,821

Source: The Contractor’s Underwriting Department after 

RMA data. 

Under an ARH-type plan, a loss would exist whenever the sales during the crop year plus the 

appraised value of any inventory remaining after damage is less than the historical revenue. 

Determining the value of the inventory remaining after damage would be a major hurdle. One 

approach would be to determine the average percent of damage for a basic unit and reducing the 

amount of insurance by that percentage. A drawback to this approach would exist if there were a 

wide variation in plant values within a unit and damage were not uniform among price ranges. 

For example, if the most expensive plants (assume 50 percent of basic unit value but 25 percent 

of plants) suffered a total loss and the least expensive had no loss, the loss in physical terms is 25 

percent (1.00 x 0.25 + 0.00 x 0.75). Hence, there is no indemnifiable loss even at the 75 percent 

coverage level, although 50 percent of the unit value has been lost (1.00 x 0.50 + 0.00 x 0.50). A 

solution for this issue must be found if the principles of ARH are to be applied to nursery. 

However, if precise pricing of individual plants and sizes is determined to be essential for 

accurate loss adjustment, this plan will be difficult to implement. 

Another potential impediment to adopting an ARH-like plan for nursery arises because sales may 

not represent the total value of inventory that exists at any time. Inventory turnover may be 

greater or less than 1.0 times per year, in which case the value of the inventory at any point in 

time is less (greater) than annual sales. The key to resolving this issue is determining whether it 

is possible to measure the number of “turns” of inventory that occur in any particular nursery 

seeking crop insurance coverage. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

7

In summary, development of an ARH-type plan for nursery that does not require plant prices 

may be possible, but would present major hurdles that must be overcome to achieve feasibility. 

A side effect of introducing an ARH program is that CAT coverage could not be offered under 

this plan since it would be a revenue program. There are both benefits and issues with having no 

CAT option. The incentives of producers, insurance agents, and the government regarding 

establishment of a liability level would be better aligned. However, participation might be 

limited by perceptions about the value of the coverage relative to the out-of-pocket cost to 

producers. 

Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) and AGR-Lite 

RMA Description: AGR and AGR-Lite policies insure revenue of the entire farm rather than an 

individual crop by guaranteeing a percentage of average gross farm revenue, including a small 

amount of livestock revenue. The policies use information from a producer’s Schedule F tax 

forms and current year expected farm revenue to calculate policy revenue guarantee. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: These policies presently can be elected by nursery operators in some 

states, but there does not appear to be any demand. In listening sessions, some producers 

indicated they like the AGR approach but feel they are penalized in the establishment of a 

diversity score because their multiple species do not qualify as different crops.5 One agent 

indicated he acknowledged to nursery producers that AGR was available, but discouraged 

consideration of the product because it did not appropriately reflect the risks to producers of 

diverse nursery products. 

Development of an AGR-type plan specifically for nursery would not require plant prices, but 

would present hurdles that must be overcome to achieve feasibility. The issue of diversity score 

would be particularly challenging considering the many different business models in the nursery 

industry. The existence of retail sales would need to be addressed. Many of the same issues that 

were identified in the discussion of ARH also apply to AGR since the Schedule F essentially 

represents total sales for a tax year, not inventory value at any point in time. A side effect of 

using an AGR program is that CAT coverage could not be offered under this plan since this 

would be a revenue program. As mentioned earlier, there are both benefits and issues with 

having no CAT option. 

Dollar Plan

RMA Description: Dollar Plan policies provide protection against declining value due to damage 

that causes a yield shortfall. The amount of insurance is based on the cost of growing a crop in a 

specific area. A loss occurs when the annual crop value is less than the amount of insurance. 

The maximum dollar amount of insurance is stated on the actuarial document. The insured may 

select a percent of the maximum dollar amount equal to CAT or purchase additional coverage 

levels. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: Establishing the maximum amount of insurance per standardized unit 

of land area would be a formidable hurdle that must be overcome if the dollar plan design is to 

be applied to nursery. It is doubtful that a reliable source of data regarding production costs for 

 

5

 The Contractor reviewed several “Approved Commodity Code Lists” in the AGR-L Standards Handbook. In all cases, Nursery 

(FG&C) is listed as a single crop. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

8

nursery can be found. Since the crop is not standardized, a single dollar value per unit of area 

would not be adequate, thereby making the task of establishing the dollar amount of insurance 

even more formidable. It is doubtful this design as currently implemented could be successfully 

applied to nursery. 

Group Risk Plan (GRP) 

RMA Description: GRP is designed as a risk management tool to insure against widespread loss 

of production of the insured crop in a county. GRP policies use a county yield index as the basis 

for determining a loss. When the estimated county yield for the insured crop, as determined by 

National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), falls below the trigger yield level chosen by the 

producer, an indemnity is paid. Payments are not based on an individual producer’s crop yields. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: Yield is an essential component of GRP plans. As noted earlier, a 

concept of physical yield cannot be defined at the individual level for nursery, let alone the 

county or regional level. There are no NASS data. Hence, GRP does not appear to provide any 

potential for application to nursery. 

Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) and GRIP – Harvest Revenue Option

RMA Description: GRIP and GRIP – Harvest Revenue Option are designed as risk 

management tools to insure against widespread loss of revenue from the insured crop in a 

county. GRIP policies use a county revenue index as the basis for determining a loss by 

using the estimated county yield for the insured crop, as determined by NASS, multiplied 

by the harvest price. If the county revenue falls below the trigger revenue level chosen 

by the producer, an indemnity is paid. [Contractor’s addition: the county revenue index 

is based on the same projected and harvest price used for revenue protection (see below).] 

Contractor’s Evaluation: These plans have two attributes that disqualify them as relevant for 

use in nursery, especially in terms of meeting RMA’s goals for a new approach to nursery crop 

insurance. These attributes are the need for a measure of yield and the need for a projected price. 

Revenue Protection (RP) and Revenue Protection with Harvest Price Exclusion (RPHPE) 

RMA Description: RP and RP-HPE policies insure producers against yield losses due to 

natural causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insects, and disease, 

as well as revenue losses caused by a change in the harvest price from the projected price. 

The producer selects the amount of average yield he or she wishes to insure; from 50 to 

75 percent (in some areas to 85 percent). If the harvested plus any appraised production 

multiplied by the harvest price is less than the amount of insurance protection, the 

producer is paid an indemnity based on the difference. RP-HPE differs only in that the 

harvest price is not a factor in determining eligibility for an indemnity.

Contractor’s Evaluation: Again, the plans require a measure of physical yield, which is not 

possible for nursery. The plan also requires a predicted price, the attribute RMA prefers to 

replace. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

9

Yield Protection 

RMA Description: Yield Protection policies insure producers in the same manner as APH 

polices, except a projected price is used to determine insurance coverage. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: The same observations as those made with regard to the APH plan 

also apply to Yield Protection since the plan is the same; only the nature of the projected price 

determination differs. 

Summary 

In summary, of the insurance plans that presently exist, the Contractor believes only ARH and an 

AGR-like product could potentially be developed to make them amenable to insuring nurseries. 

The Contractor makes this evaluation concerning ARH because it appears possible to define a 

measure of liability for nursery ARH based on historical records. The historical records of sales 

made by the nursery industry would be the same as the historical records used to establish 

historical revenue for other crops (such as cherries) with one exception: there is no third party 

involvement in establishing those records. There are numerous issues that must be resolved 

before ARH could become the basis of a revised nursery program. Among these issues are 

defining risk units to better homogenize the plant values within a unit (to facilitate loss 

adjustment); developing procedures for loss adjustment in the absence of an externally generated 

price schedule; accounting for expansion/contraction of nursery operations over time, especially 

with regard to validating the number of square feet utilized; variability in the composition of the 

inventory among years; adjusting the average dollar value of sales to a representative inventory 

valuation; and others. 

The Contractor is hesitant to encourage development of an AGR-like product because of the 

limited participation in AGR in general and the lack of participation by nurseries in AGR where 

it is available to that industry. The issue of the inability to qualify for a meaningful diversity 

score most likely could be overcome with an appropriate classification of plants and production 

practices. However, there are numerous other issues that must be resolved before an AGR-like 

product could become the basis of a new nursery program. Among these issues: appropriately 

reflecting the limits to risk the diversity of nursery operations affords, accounting for 

expansion/contraction of nursery operations over time, especially with regard to validating the 

number of square feet utilized, and addressing the variability in the composition of the inventory 

among years, adjusting the average dollar value of sales to a representative inventory valuation, 

and others. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

10

SECTION IV. NEW PLAN ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT NURSERY CROP 

INSURANCE PROGRAM 

The issues related to determining the value of individual plants and the value of an inventory are 

significant in the present Nursery Program. The program has evolved significantly over the 

years. RMA selected the PPS as the vehicle to determine values of individual plants beginning 

with the 1999 crop year. The PPS pricing is based on information collected under the Nursery 

Program and processed by DataScape, LLC. DataScape was identified as the only reliable 

source that followed a specific methodology to establish prices that are generally reflective of the 

market for plants. The key term herein is “generally.” It does not reflect the pricing practices of 

a particular nursery, a matter that has resulted in significant comments and discussions during the 

rule-making procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act. Since this is a major 

component of the Nursery Program that RMA seeks to streamline, the following discussion of 

the Nursery Program history will focus on the valuation of individual plants and inventory. 

IV.A. Nursery Program History 

The Contractor reviewed the regulatory history of the Nursery Crop Insurance Program to 

document the manner by which the issue of valuing plants and inventory has been managed over 

time. The oldest information available on the internet is the 1997 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). This document contains 7 CFR Part 406, the Nursery Crop Insurance Provisions for 

1989 and succeeding crop years. This insurance policy required the insured to file a nursery crop 

report consisting of “...all of your eligible nursery crops in the county by unit, type, container 

size, number of plants and wholesale price of plants for each month of the crop year” (section 

3(a)). The wholesale price to be reported was the discounted price from the nursery’s catalog for 

each month during a crop year. The total value developed with this information was reduced by 

10 percent to account for packing, shipping, sales commissions, and other expenses not insured. 

In the event of a claim for indemnity, the procedure was much the same as that contained in the 

current Crop Provisions except FMV A was determined using the prices that “...would have 

been reasonably expected in the month which the loss occurred”6

 (less 10 percent). Thus, the 

only difference from the current program is the definition of the applicable price. 

7 CFR Part 406, as described above, remained in effect until modified by a final rule published 

in the 1995 Federal Register.7 This rule converted the Nursery Program from 7 CFR Part 406 to 

the Common Crop Insurance Policy (7 CFR 457.8). These Crop Provisions (96-056), effective 

for the 1996 crop year, also required the insured to develop a monthly inventory of plants valued 

with the insured’s wholesale catalog. The monthly inventory values continued to be based on the 

monthly wholesale price. In response to comments to the proposed rule, FCIC stated: “Due to 

numerous varieties of nursery plants eligible for insurance, FCIC believes that it is impractical to 

establish a price for each insured plant in the various states prior to the crop year. FCIC will 

determine whether the wholesale market price of the plant is reasonable before accepting it as the 

projected market price.”8

 The Crop Provisions contained the following provision to implement 

this statement: “Your wholesale price list may be examined to determine whether the prices 

listed are reasonable. If the prices are determined to be unreasonable, the previous acceptable 

 

6

 7 CFR Ch. IV (1-1-97 Edition) page 191. 

7

 60 FR 31375 – 31381 (January 27, 1995). 

8

 60 FR 31376. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

11

wholesale price list will be used or we may establish the wholesale price for each type of plant.” 

This represented a change from the 1989 Crop Provisions, which did not contain a provision 

specifically allowing the AIP to challenge the catalog prices. 

The program subsequently was revised for the 1999 crop year with publication of a final rule at 

63 FR 50965 ff (September 24, 1998). This change introduced the PPS, an action deemed 

necessary because “FCIC determined that a fixed plant price schedule was essential to the 

continued offering of a nursery insurance program. A number of public oversight agencies 

found that FCIC was exposing the nursery program to potential abuse and litigation when it 

allowed individual nurseries to set their own prices.”9

 The PPS has remained a feature of 

nursery crop insurance since that time. The provisions published at 63 FR did not specify the 

“lower of” the PPS or the insured’s wholesale catalog, but instead mandated the values in the 

PPS be used to set inventory values. Persons making comments to the proposed rule objected to 

this requirement. RMA summarized one comment as follows: “The commenter was also 

concerned that substandard producers will be rewarded with a program that provides them with a 

higher average value for their plants.”10

 RMA’s response to this comment concluded that no 

change to the proposed rule was necessary, and the PPS was implemented as the sole vehicle to 

establish plant prices in the 1999 crop provisions. 

FCIC subsequently published a proposed rule at 69 FR 48166 ff (August 9, 2004) in which the 

following statement occurs with regard to a proposed change in policy language: “Clarify that 

the price for each plant and size listed on the insured’s plant inventory value report is the lower 

of the Plant Price Schedule price or the lowest wholesale price listed in the insured’s nursery 

catalog or price list.”11

 This particular language did not appear in the 1999 Crop Provisions. It 

also did not appear in the Special Provisions. However, the 2000 LASH contained the following 

definition: “Price: For this handbook, the word “Price” is the lower of the price in the 

Nursery’s catalog minus all discounts (referred to as the growers’ best wholesale catalog price) 

or the maximum price shown in the Eligible Plant List and Plant Price Schedule.”12 This same 

statement appeared in the Underwriting Guide.13

 This was a change from the 1999 Underwriting 

Guide as identified in the Summary of Changes.14 Thus, procedure documents for crop year 

2000 were used to modify regulatory language that was made effective for the 1999 crop year. 

This action may have been taken in response to the comments regarding substandard producers 

that FCIC had not accepted for the final rule published in 1998. This proposed rule was adopted 

at 70 FR 37222 ff (June 8, 2005). There were no comments and no discussion regarding this 

clarification that was effective for the 2006 crop year. 

This regulatory history demonstrates that the Nursery Program has progressively become more 

demanding with respect to documentation of plant prices. Initially, the grower’s price catalog 

was acceptable without specific restrictions in the policy. Subsequently, the policy made the 

catalog conditional on approval. Then the PPS was introduced as the required price. This then 

 

9

 63 FR 50967. 

10 Ibid. 

11 69 FR 48169. 

12 Nursery Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook 2000 and Succeeding Crop Years (FCIC-25750 (02-2000)), page 2. 

13 2000 Nursery Crop Insurance Underwriting Guide (FCIC-24050 (08-1999)), page 2. 

14 Summary: 2000 Nursery Underwriting Guide – Summary of Changes, August 1999. Unnumbered document found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/24000/2000/00_24090summary.pdf, accessed 10/11/2011. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

12

was amended via procedure to introduce the lower of the lowest catalog price or the PPS. 

Hence, the regulatory history reflects an ever-increasing concern that inappropriate prices will be 

utilized to establish the value of the inventory if a control in the form of an independently 

established acceptable price is not in place. The implication of this history is that continuation of 

the Nursery Insurance Program in its present form requires the PPS or a similar document. This 

does not mean the information must be procured from a third party. In 70 FR, FCIC made the 

following statement: “The Plant Price Schedule base price tables are established using plant 

price data available to FCIC from grower catalogs and price lists.”15 And, in fact, the Crop 

Provisions require the insured to submit two copies of grower catalogs each crop year along with 

the PIVR. Since the data are available to RMA, it is conceivable that internal resources could be 

allocated to the task of developing a price schedule, thereby avoiding out-of-pocket direct cost. 

Of course, the direct and indirect costs of redirecting agency resources to this task may 

effectively offset the out-of-pocket savings. The Contractor does not have the specific 

information needed to evaluate the alternative. 

IV.B. Additional Alternative Insurance Approaches 

The Contractor herein presents seven alternative crop insurance approaches. Two introduce 

alternative ways to establish the crop value, but otherwise use the existing nursery crop insurance 

construct. The remaining approaches introduce substantially more radical changes. These 

alternatives are offered for considerations in light of the perceived complexity of the current 

Nursery Program relative to programs offered for other crops and industries. 

Producer Historic Average Pricing (PHAP)

Description: An alternative to the PPS could be structured in the following manner: the insured 

must provide the data to calculate the average sales price by plant name and plant size for a 

period of time spanning 12 months ending perhaps 6 months prior to the beginning of the crop 

year. This alternative deliberately does not state the 12 months must correspond to a crop year 

since a certain amount of time would be required to compile the requisite information. If the 

calculations were to be on a crop year basis, a lag year would be needed since it would be 

impossible to compile a complete history of sales for a crop year after May 31 (last day of the 

crop year) to submit on May 1 (30 days prior to the end of the crop year) in accordance with the 

Crop Provisions. Sales receipts from actual wholesale sales of plants would provide evidence to 

support these analyses. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: PHAP has the advantage that it utilizes the insured’s actual sales and 

thus should reflect the individual operation. It is not an average price for all nurseries in a 

region, a characteristic that addresses comments made during previous rulemaking activity. 

Prices for higher and lower quality nurseries are automatically recognized. The PHAP 

eliminates a burden on RMA and, for all practical purposes, is not a substantially greater burden 

on the insured than the existing requirement that the insured provide “...acceptable records of 

sales and purchases of plants for the three previous crop years in the amount of detail we require 

...” (Crop Provisions section 6(b)(2)). This alternative requires the same information currently 

required with an extra step of determining prices to support the PIVR. A similar conceptual 

 

15 70 FR 37231. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

13

approach has already been implemented by RMA in the ARH programs for several perishable 

crops. 

PHAP has several disadvantages. The most obvious is that a nursery must have at least a oneyear history of sales before it becomes eligible for insurance. Even if the nursery is eligible, 

plants that were not sold during the base period will be uninsurable since no price can be 

determined. This issue is no more problematic than the treatment of “Omitted Plants” as stated 

in the current Special Provisions. That treatment states any plant grown in the nursery that 

otherwise meets the requirements for insurability, but is not listed on the grower’s catalog is 

uninsurable for the current crop year. The same is true if the plant is listed in the catalog, but 

does not have a corresponding price. 

A second disadvantage of PHAP is need for validation of the average prices calculated by the 

grower. While it might be construed to place a significant burden on the AIP, the present 

requirement that the insured provide a complete history of sales for three years imposes a 

similarly significant burden if the AIP is to effectively use this information. Validation is 

believed essential because the regulatory history demonstrates that a procedure to avoid 

excessive valuations of inventory and to appropriately establish the amount of losses is 

necessary. It is possible the existing nursery software could be modified to allow input of the 

revenues by plant name and size and number of plants sold. Perhaps this burden could be 

mitigated by requiring verification of the reported values only in the event of a loss claim. 

A third apparent disadvantage is “dated” information. The prices by definition represent market 

conditions of some time in the past and may not reflect current values. However, the “lower of” 

rule presently in place also results in dated information and may effectively negate any price 

increases the insured may have included in the catalog. The PPS by definition is based on 

growers’ catalogs that were submitted in some prior year. Hence, the approach does not “date” 

the pricing information to a greater degree than the present system. 

A fourth disadvantage is a need to develop rules similar to those in place for “added land.” 

There is potential the nursery could sell a limited number of certain plants in “sweetheart” deals 

to establish a higher-than-appropriate value. Then, in a subsequent insurance year, the number 

of plants could be increased significantly at the inflated valuation. But, since the number of 

plants sold in the base period is known (a datum that must be reported to determine the average 

sales price), a reasonable percentage increase in numbers of plants insured relative to the base 

period could be devised. 

In summary, requiring the insured to submit information that allows determination of the actual 

average sale price in some base period utilizes many of the requirements already contained 

within the Crop Provisions. An analysis of the concept would be needed to determine if the 

requirements significantly impact respondent burden hours. 

Declared Insured Valuation (DIV) 

Description: Another alternative to the present program would allow the producer to establish 

an overall insured value without need to develop the complete inventory of plant names and sizes 

and associated prices (a declared value approach). A declared value approach would calculate an 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

14

indemnity as a percent of loss in the same manner as certain other crops (such as tree insurance). 

This imposes no change on current loss adjustment since the adjuster is required to determine a 

percent of damage to establish the reduced value of the plant. This alternative simply eliminates 

the need to assign a value to the damaged plant. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: There are significant problems with the DIV approach. RMA 

identified one problem in 70 FR, as follows: “While trying to optimize coverage, there were 

several problems that had to be resolved. The first is fluctuating plant inventories during the 

crop year. This means that at time of loss, the total plant inventory values in the unit could be 

radically different than the amount of insurance. While the policy allows for increases to the 

plant inventory values if requested in writing by May 31st, insurance does not attach until 30 

days after the request was received, and it did not totally solve the problem of fluctuating plant 

inventories. To solve this problem, like the previous nursery policy, indemnities are not 

established based on the amount of insurance. Indemnities are established using the total of the 

plant inventory values of the insurable plants in the unit immediately prior to the loss and after 

the loss. This ensures that indemnities are based on the actual amount of loss suffered by the 

grower for the plants present at the time the insurable cause of loss occurs.”16

The loss adjuster needs a supportable basis, such as values of the specific plants in the inventory, 

to make the determination of the value of the inventory immediately prior to the loss (FMV A). 

A way to avoid this dilemma would be to require the insured to document all changes to the 

inventory during the course of the crop year. There would be an incentive for an unscrupulous 

insured to overlook sales records so FMV A is maximized. Further, the insured may declare an 

excessive valuation at the beginning of the insurance period. In this case, the valuation still 

would be excessive even if the net sales were accurately reported. The loss adjuster has no basis 

to detect this situation if the only information available is the number of plants and a value 

declared by the insured. 

In summary, the Contractor believes the regulatory history suggests this approach would recreate many of the problems and issues that caused several changes in the Nursery Insurance 

Program in the past 20-plus years. Balancing administrative burden and incentives for 

inappropriate behavior is one of the key challenges in offering a program as complex as a 

Nursery Insurance Program. 

Area-based Dollar Valuation (ADV)

Description: In ADV, the producer proposes a dollar valuation based on the physical area (in 

square feet or acres) by type and practice. The PPS would be replaced with an underwriting tool 

that would be simpler and less precise than the current count and pricing inventory approach. 

Most likely, additional types would need to be added by splitting existing types (thus roses could 

be split into grafted roses and root-on plants or into groups like hybrid, climbing, and miniature, 

while herbaceous perennials might be split into chrysanthemums and all other). The insured 

would provide maps of the operation. The insurer would validate the mapping and declared type 

in each area. Assuming premium rates offer an accurate reflection of risk and that a producer 

cannot “create” losses, the only reason it is desirable to avoid prices that could exceed the value 

 

16 70 FR 37224 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

15

of the crop is to limit abuse of the subsidy. While the base liability would be established by 

multiplying the physical area under production by a factor reflecting the base valuation by type, 

an unsubsidized option for higher area-based valuations used on producer historic revenues 

might be developed to address producer concerns about the limits imposed by the base valuation 

approach. Since only the premium for the base valuation is subsidized, the subsidy is, in 

essence, provided for a generic risk management tool. While the insurance model is different for 

ADV than for GRP and GRIP, all three deal with data issues by providing a subsidized insurance 

product that is less ‘customized’ than many of the products in the RMA portfolio. However, 

since the premium for the optional increased liability is unsubsidized, the incentives for overinsuring are limited. This approach is a compromise to address the goal of eliminating the PPS, 

while limiting the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

In the event of a loss, the adjustment under ADV involves mapping rather than counting, with 

the map areas adjusted to reflects gaps in the “planting patterns” that resulted from management 

practices and sales rather than from the insured cause of loss. For container plants, the “lost” 

plants could be grouped for ease of determining the “area” lost. Such sorting is a logical element 

in the rehabilitation of a damaged nursery and consequently imposes no additional burden on the 

insured. In-field plantings would still require counting to establish losses, but sampling tied to 

mapping could simplify the counts and eliminate the FMV A count entirely. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: ADV has the advantage that it eliminates much of the counting 

required to establish and adjust the nursery insurance. It addresses the issue of value less 

precisely than the current insurance, but eliminates many of the producer and AIP costs 

associated with sign-up. It risks providing a generic safety net for an industry that is anything 

but generic. The basis for establishing per-unit-area valuations by type would involve substantial 

research into regional practices. The Contractor observed that there is not a “standard” plant 

spacing within a type or between regions. The Contractor is not aware of data currently 

available that would assist in establishing the area-based valuations. 

A Hybrid -- Itemized Inventory Plus Area Valuation (II/AV) 

Description: In discussions with nursery growers and others knowledgeable about the industry, 

the Contractor learned that inventory maintenance practices varied widely in the industry. Most 

often, detailed information about high value plants was maintained. Information about these 

plants generally is at a level required by the Crop Provisions and the nursery software provided 

by RMA. Precise inventories of lower valued plants commonly were not maintained simply 

because the cost of maintaining such precise values may exceed the benefits of having that 

knowledge. This category would include such items as liners full of bedding plants, smaller 

plants in small containers, and similar situations. 

This suggests a hybrid approach to determining the insurable value of inventory. The basic 

concept of II/AV is that plants whose value is in excess of some threshold of value must be 

reported in greater detail than those plants whose value is below the threshold. Plants below the 

threshold could be reported on the basis of some area valuation. For example, if the nursery 

contains 500 tables of liners, each table containing 150 sq. ft., each liner occupies 2 sq. ft. (75 

liners per table), and each liner is valued at $1, the value of that inventory is 75 x $1 x 500 = 

$37,500. There would be no need to establish that 5,015 of those liners were species x, 2,045 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

16

were species y, etc. An analysis of the information in the PPS could discriminate categories of 

plants of similar value that could be included in a common grouping. This would simplify the 

reporting of inventory by focusing the detailed accounting on those plants most likely to give rise 

to disputes over value if that value is not established appropriately before insurance attaches. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: II/AV has the advantage that it eliminates much of the counting 

required to establish and adjust the nursery insurance. It addresses the issue of value less 

precisely than the current insurance, but eliminates many of the producer and AIP costs 

associated with sign-up, while still maintaining the inventory precision for higher value plants. 

The basis for establishing per-unit-area valuations would involve substantial research. As noted 

earlier, the Contractor observed that there is not a “standard” plant spacing within a type or 

between regions. The Contractor is not aware of data currently available that would assist in 

establishing the area-based valuations. 

The Definitive Inventory Approach (DIA)

Description: Under DIA, RMA would replace DataScape with a new inventory tool. The 

DataScape tool is disliked by agents and nursery growers because it serves only one purpose 

(insurance), it is not compatible with other software, and it is perceived as unnecessarily 

cumbersome and difficult to use. Information technology has evolved enormously since the 

DataScape software was developed. It is feasible to develop a new inventory tool that provides 

all necessary inventory and accounting functions for a nursery business. It should be possible for 

the new tool to exchange information with standard spreadsheet programs, accounting programs, 

and industry standard programs (e.g., SBI, Winplant, and Plantex software). The software could 

be designed to track both the producer’s average price (based on a weighted sales inventory) and 

industry average prices. An algorithm based on this live price data would replace the prices from 

the PPS. The software could support direct imports from common nursery software packages, 

alleviating the need for dedicated re-entry of the same data nurseries already captured for their 

own accounting purposes. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: DIA has the advantage in that it eliminates the counting required to 

establish the PIVR and FMV A. It could address the issue of value more precisely than the 

current insurance while eliminating many of the producer and AIP costs associated with sign-up. 

The approach turns an unpopular element of the current Nursery Program into a product that is 

useful to the insured and the insurance industry. The downside of this change is it would involve 

a considerable software development effort. While DataScape LLC would have the advantage of 

already managing the EPL and PPS, the Contractor assumes the content of those lists belongs to 

RMA and consequently could be supplied to any vendor if the contract for software development 

were awarded under competitive bidding. The DIA is not necessarily a stand-alone approach, 

but instead could be coordinated with other ideas. In particular, it should facilitate the capture of 

historical actual prices, obviating the need for the costly annual updating of PPS while 

simultaneously improving the accuracy of its values. 

Monthly Dollar Valuation (MDV)

Description: In MDV, the producer proposes a dollar valuation per unit by month, type, and 

practice. The PPS would be replaced with an underwriting program to avoid egregious overinsurance. One requisite underwriting tool would be a set of maximum per-area values by type, 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

17

practice, and month. The current generic prices would be used to establish limits on valuation. 

As with the ADV, additional types would most likely need to be added. The insured would 

provide maps of their units and a summary of the valuation at the beginning of the month. The 

insurer would validate the mapping and type. An unsubsidized option for higher producer 

valuations based on producer historic revenues might be developed to address producer concerns 

about generic pricing. In the event of a loss, the adjustment involves mapping damage rather 

than counting, with the map areas adjusted to reflect gaps in the “planting patterns” that resulted 

from management practices and sales rather than from the insured cause of loss. The short 

insurance period(s), in effect allowing a separate policy to be in place each month, would help 

limit problems currently associated with inventory requirements and errors resulting from 

constantly changing inventories. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: MDV is designed to address some of the producer concerns about 

variability in their inventory and limited risky periods. Essentially, it is the ADV prepared 

monthly. It addresses the issue of value less precisely than the current insurance, but eliminates 

many of the producer and AIP costs associated with signup. It risks providing a generic safety 

net for an industry that is anything but generic. Establishing underwriting to protect against 

fraud, waste, and abuse would involve a substantial development effort, as would the 

development of the monthly premium structure. 

Endorsement Package Pricing (EPP)

Description: Several producers and agents indicated they welcomed the variety of insurance 

packages that could be developed using the existing base policy and endorsements available to 

those purchasing insurance at additional levels of coverage. EPP would introduce endorsements 

to allow a variety of different pricing approaches, each with its unique underwriting, cost, and 

perhaps subsidy structure (i.e., most likely subsidized or not subsidized). The base policy would 

be priced based on the area under production with a minimal valuation by practice (the need for 

this valuation is to recognize that field planted nurseries have a much lower planting density than 

containerized nurseries). The insured could then elect endorsements that adjusted value based on 

mapping and types, on mappings and species (with generic valuations by species updated once 

every four to five years), or on producer prices and inventories (the current option for those 

insuring with the Nursery Growers Price Endorsement , but without the need for annual updating 

of a PPS). 

Contractor’s Evaluation: Homeowner’s policies are generally characterized by a limited base 

policy and page after page of endorsements. EPP is designed to reflect this familiar structure. 

The current Nursery Program already incorporates the option to buy numerous endorsements 

while EPP simply adds the pricing approach to the list of available options. It would be logical 

to have the base policy under EPP replace the CAT endorsement since the base policy price is 

likely to be below the value a producer would attach to his inventory. Elimination of the CAT 

endorsement changes incentives in the use of FCIC insurance in the producer’s risk management 

approach. The EPP approach consequently introduces a new concept for insuring what would be 

a catastrophic loss. It would allow the producer to choose to insure at a level that would simply 

help them start over, but without the tremendous administrative burden of the existing CAT 

coverage under the Nursery Program. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

18

Nursery Gross Margin (NGM) 

Description: Gross margin is the market value of nursery production minus the input costs. 

NGM, like Livestock Gross Margin coverage, provides protection to producers when input costs 

rise or nursery prices drop. NGM uses U.S. Census Bureau New Residential Construction data 

as the basis for determining the market value of the nursery production. NGM uses fuel, energy, 

and fertilizer costs to establish input costs. A premium subsidy is available for those policies 

that insure multiple months during the insurance period. The subsidy amount is determined by a 

dollar deductible selected by the policyholder. Policies with a lower deductible would have a 

lower subsidy level. NGM provides a mechanism to hedge some of the price risk associated 

with longer term nursery production. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: Only nursery producers with long-term investments in their 

inventories face the kind of risk that would be addressed by NGM. Consequently, NGM does 

not address the risks associated with catastrophic weather events. Furthermore, producers of 

annuals, liners, and most herbaceous perennials schedule their production activity and establish 

their contract price basis based on the expectation of “just-in-time” delivery. In many cases, the 

inputs (with the exception of labor) are locked in (and sometimes even delivered) before the 

production cycle begins. In contrast, the producers of woody nursery stock are in a quite 

different situation. In this industry segment two to ten years of inputs must be recouped in a sale. 

Without some mechanism to hedge against changes in the input cost structure, the producer’s 

margin is at risk. 

One of the challenges with using a margin approach for the nursery industry is that there are no 

indices or futures markets that directly address the production costs or market prices. A 

developer would need to first develop an appropriate indexing structure, then analyze historical 

volatility, then develop the NGM insurance. A producer and an insurance industry 

representative in the Pacific Northwest found this concept appealing. Their operations 

represented just the right segment of the nursery industry to have such an interest. As the 

product would not be generally applicable to nursery production, NGM would likely need to be 

part of a suite of products for the industry. 

One-off Contracts (OC)

Description: Under OC, RMA would subsidize development of unique contracts for nursery 

producers. This approach recognizes that each nursery producer is distinctive. It acknowledges 

that the risks are unique to the nursery’s specific business model and the species propagated by 

the nursery. The OC would use funds currently directed to premium and administrative and 

operating subsidies in the form of costs to prepare the PPS to support AIP overhead and 

administration costs to develop individual policies for each nursery. The premiums would not be 

subsidized. However, the nursery would have a customized product that should address the 

industry niche and risk tolerance of the producer. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: OC requires a complete change in the concepts surrounding federal 

subsidies for crop insurance. It would require changes in the Act, RMA rules, RMA processes, 

and the conceptual basis for the insurance, and might require new language in the Standard 

Reinsurance Agreement. The barriers to implementing the idea are enormous. While producers 

indicate the current insurance does not acknowledge their business model, it is unlikely many 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

19

would be eager to buy the insurance if the subsidy were directed to higher overhead and 

administrative costs and away from the risk premium. 

Multiple Products Using the Existing Nursery Crop Insurance Approach 

Description: A number of stakeholders suggested the basic concept of the nursery crop 

inventory insurance could be appropriate, but the limits on the unit structure introduce elements 

of complexity in their decision-making that are difficult to process. Insurance coverage is 

currently available by practice (fieldgrown or container) for all of the nursery plants an insured 

grows in a county that: 

 Are on the Eligible Plant List; 

 Are grown in a nursery that receives at least 50 percent of its gross income from the 

wholesale marketing of nursery plants; 

 Meet all the requirements for insurability; and 

 Are grown in an appropriate medium. 

The insured can have separate basic units by type if the insurance is at the buy-up level, but that 

means the insured can choose different levels of buy-up for different types The insured can not 

choose to insure some types within a practice at CAT and some at buy-up, and all nursery plants 

that are eligible for insurance need to be insured. 

Under the producer proposed approach, each type/practice would be offered as a separate 

product. If the current type structure were kept, it would be possible for the insured to have 15 

products (one for each type) for container grown and 12 for field grown. In contrast to the 

existing product, under the proposed approach a producer who has all 27 type/practice 

combinations could insure a few at CAT, a few at 50 percent buy-up, a few at 75 percent buyup, and have no insurance on the remaining types/practices. Some of the producers making this 

suggestion were actually interested in further sub-division of the current type structure. For 

example, there was a suggestion that tea roses, miniature roses, climbing roses, floribunda roses, 

grandiflora roses, and tree roses should all be distinct types and a producer should be able to 

insure some of those types but carry all the risk themselves on others. 

Contractor’s Evaluation: Dividing a producer’s inventory into multiple crops better reflects the 

biology of the nursery crops. It may or may not appropriately reflect the producer’s business 

model. It provides the producer an opportunity to insure crops whose risks the producer feels are 

better shared and not to insure crops whose level of risks are tolerable to the producer. While 

this opportunity exists for most producers of typical field and row crops, data for distinguishing 

the risk by types and sub-types among the nursery crops is likely to be a barrier to using this 

approach. 

It is important to note the Contractor believes the scope of such a change is enormous. In the 

extreme, hundred of new products would be required. At the minimum 27 new crop insurance 

products would be developed (albeit with a skeleton for the underwriting and loss adjustment). 

The RMA experience data, the best data for risk assessment, is unlikely to support rating for all 

these products unless judgmental rating is the principal (or perhaps the sole) approach to 

determining rates for the initial offer. The substantial use of CAT coverage by insureds under 

the current Nursery Crop Insurance program will mean a substantial portion of data concerning 

loss experiences that might have been indemnified under this new approach will not have been 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

20

documented under the current approach. The RMA database can be mined to determine if 

sufficient data by existing type would allow this insurance construct. Even if it is feasible, the 

risk for adverse selection under this approach is substantial. Insured liability might decrease 

substantially while indemnities might increase for particularly risky types. 

Summary 

The variation among plants and among nursery operations does not permit a simple insurance 

design based on a single price. Any design based on a limited number of prices will likely elicit 

complaints from the insureds unless an option to increase those prices is available. The 

Contractor has introduced a number of crop insurance approaches for nursery. None reliably 

reflect the values of plants contained in a producer’s inventory without introducing some risk 

that the producer might be tempted to over-insure, meaning effective underwriting controls 

would be needed. Whether those controls would be more or less onerous than the existing 

program is not known. Further development of any of these ideas is possible. During those 

development efforts, it is likely some will be proven to be infeasible even with changes to the 

Act. A brief description of each concept is offered here as a starting point to assess the interest 

and will of the agency for potentially radical changes to nursery crop insurance; a full feasibility 

assessment of any of these options is beyond the scope of this deliverable. 
Nursery Insurance Program Recommended Improvements Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

21

SECTION V. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Inasmuch as RMA indicated a desire to consider its options without being constrained to 

conventional crop insurance structures, the Contractor makes only limited recommendations 

concerning alternatives to the current Nursery Program. Of the existing plans of insurance, 

evaluation of the ARH approach seems the most likely to provide a product acceptable to the 

insureds. A second revenue approach, based on the existing AGR products but specifically 

tailored to nurseries, might also be evaluated as an alternative to the Nursery Program. 

Among the less conventional products, in the proposed approaches there is a trend to address the 

issue of over-insurance by eliminating the incentive (the premium subsidy) for such a behavior. 

That requires a new way of thinking about RMA administered products. The Contractor will 

defer to RMA on the willingness of the agency to pursue such a radical approach to the issues 

affecting the Nursery Program. One of the challenges with Nursery Program is that it is intended 

to be all-inclusive. The Crop Provisions are attempting to address crops as different as 

mushrooms and Christmas trees. It may be useful to consider breaking the Nursery Program into 

separate products for annual bedding plants, woody trees and shrubs, herbaceous perennials, etc. 

Abandoning the concept of a single nursery product, and developing related but purpose-built 

programs could provide yet another way to re-imagine nursery crop insurance. 

Further elaboration of concepts of particular interest to RMA can be pursued in the subsequent 

deliverables of this project, recognizing the limitations imposed on scope by the terms of the 

contract. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Appendix A 

Program Evaluation Tool 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A1

Exhibit 1 

New England, Midwestern, and Mid-Atlantic States 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A2

Program Evaluation Diagnostic Questions – Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program 

Region New England, Midwestern, and Mid-Atlantic States 

Typical Crops Nursery plants in various sizes, including annuals, biennials, herbaceous 

perennials, and woody species of a wide range of types. 

Market fresh , processed , other marketed as container, bare root, and 

balled and burlap plants. 

Background Information 

Production Processes 

Annuals 

1. Are the crops planted multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the annual nursery plants are planted multiple times; others are planted just once a 

year. 

2. For a single planting, are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? 

If yes, explain: Yes , No 

Some of the annual nursery plants are harvested multiple times for marketing at different 

sizes; others are harvested just once a year. 

3. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as double crop, fallow, irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, 

etc.). Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including 

potential issues with practices and types. 

Each operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for species, practice, 

and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close proximity to one another with 

irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is influenced by markets 

more than management practices. Soil mixes are proprietary and the soil is sold with the 

production. 

Biennials 

4. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? Yes , No 

Many of the biennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times; a few are harvested just 

once a year depending on the market. 

5. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A3

As with the annuals, each biennial operation is unique. The producers have developed niche 

markets for species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close 

proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. Most of the plants are sold in containers. 

Perennials 

6. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the perennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times to address market 

requirements; others that are sensitive to planting times are harvested just once a year, still 

others are treated like annual plants (either (a) grown for a year and then marketed or (b) 

purchased as liners or container plants and repotted and grown for a year. 

7. Are the crops alternate bearing? Yes , No 

This question is not relevant for the Nursery Crop Insurance Program. The insured crop is 

the plant itself, not the fruit. 

8. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 

Each operation producing perennials is unique. The producers have developed niche markets 

for species, practice, and size. In general, plants in containers are maintained in close 

proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. Plants are generally potted up if they are 

not sold. Eventually plants become too large for the market and they are destroyed. 

Field grown plants are grown in single or double rows, with or without irrigation. Growth is 

supported by frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover in many cases is 

influenced as much by markets as by management practices. For balled and burlap plants, 

the root ball and associated soil is dug, wrapped, and tied off. Eventually if plants cannot be 

sold they become too large for the market and are destroyed. For bare root plants, the harvest 

must be done when the plants are dormant. This is most often early spring or late fall. 

9. What is the economic life of the capital stock (trees, vines, etc.)? 

3 weeks to 20 years depending on the plant, market niche, and production practices.

10. Over its economic life, what is the likelihood that ten percent or more of the capital stock 

would be lost due to natural causes? Describe: 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A4

<1% (probability of loss)

The capital stock is the crop; the intact nursery plants (and often the soil) are harvested for 

sale. The losses of capital stock may not involve loss of entire plants, but instead loss of 

portions of the plants to extreme weather. The effect of such partial losses in the short run is 

similar to the effect of losing whole plants, recovery is sometimes possible, depending on the 

nature of the damage. 

11. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

starts producing saleable output? 

1 month to never. Some plants (particularly heritage varieties) may be irreplaceable.

12. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

is at peak production? 

1 to 10 years to never, depending on the market and production practices for the operation.

Nursery 

13. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for nursery crops 

in this region. Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand 

including potential issues with practices and types. 

Some nurseries in the region grow plants from seed, from cuttings, from liners of all sizes, 

and less often from meristem cloning. Other nurseries in the region buy plants produced by 

these three processes. Some of the nursery stock used by nurseries is locally produced; some 

comes great distances (including imported planting materials). Markets determine the type 

and practice for nursery materials used by the nurseries in the area, however most producers 

have developed a particular approach to maximize their share within the niche while 

minimizing costs. 

Marketing 

14. Describe typical marketing channels and/or contracting structures for these crops. 

The marketing channels for nursery production vary by operation, by type, and variety. 

Many producers in the region produce limited varieties maintained under a single practice 

(although field grown stock may be sold both balled and burlapped and bare root). 

Depending on the market, production may be sold to a single buyer or multiple buyers. The 

buyers can be landscaping, retail, or re-wholesale operations. Some production is initiated 

under contract, some is speculative. Many of the producers, particularly smaller operations, 

see into retail as well as wholesale markets. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A5

15. In this region are there critical time periods (i.e., marketing windows) when producers hope 

to market these crops? If so, describe. 

Yes. The windows for sales of most of these nursery crops are very small. The precise 

period varies by type, variety, and market. 

16. Within the marketing channels and/or contracting structures mentioned above describe how 

quality variations are handled (e.g., off-grade apples in a fresh market system may be 

processed for juice). 

Generally off-grade production in not saleable. The costs of rehabilitation relative to the 

value of the crop generally preclude such actions. The discounts for sale of off-grade 

production often do not justify maintenance of the crop. 

In this region, do federal supply control marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

In this region, do state quality marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

RMA–Facilitated Insurance Products 

17. In this region, what RMA-facilitated insurance products are currently available for these 

crops? List all: 

The Nursery Crop Insurance policy and the AGR policies are the RMA-facilitated insurance 

product currently available for these crops. AGR and/or AGR-Lite are not available in every 

state in this region. 

The questions in this section (20 through 26) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. There is 

no yield of nursery production. Consequently, this section has been left blank. 

Yield Risk 

18. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative yield risk? Relative risk is 

used to adjust absolute magnitudes that vary across crops to a relative level to facilitate 

comparability (roughly, a measure of variation divided by the mean level). 

19. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative yield risk? 

20. Are these crops exposed to catastrophic risks that would reduce yields by 50 percent or 

more? Yes , No 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A6

21. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic losses to occur? 

Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25

22. Characterize yield risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic yield risk(s) described 

earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the low relative yield risk crops identified earlier were 

one, and the high relative yield risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would 

you assign to the non-catastrophic yield risk associated with these crops in this region? 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk 

23. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of good yields or bad 

yields for these crops? If yes, describe what causes these multiple-year sequences. 

Yes , No . 

24. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low yield risk and five is very high yield risk, 

provide an overall assessment of yield risk faced by producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk 

The questions in this section (27 through 32) are only marginally relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. 

The nursery production has no quality in the sense a harvested crop has quality. 

Consequently, the questions in this section have been answered to reflect the effects on the 

“quality” of the inventory rather than any effects on quality of a harvestable product. 

Quality Risk 

25. In this region what are examples of crops with very low quality risk? 

N/A 

26. In this region what are examples of crops with very high quality risk? 

N/A 

27. Are the crops exposed to catastrophic quality risks that would reduce the average price 

received [marketability] by 20 percent or more? Yes , No 

28. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic quality losses to occur? 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A7

The assessment is for a single operations production, which is a small portion of the crop in 

the region. 

Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

Hail 2

Excessive Precipitation 1

Flood 0 to 5 

Hurricane 0 to 1

29. We now want to characterize quality risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic quality 

risk(s) described earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the crops with very low risk of 

quality problems identified earlier were one, and the crops with very high risk of quality 

problems identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the quality risk 

associated with these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low quality risk and 5 is very 

high quality risk. 

This question is not relevant to nursery crop insurance. 

30. On a scale from one to five, if one is very low quality [marketability] risk and five is very 

high risk, provide an overall assessment of quality [marketability] risk faced by producers of 

these crops in this region. 

1

The questions in this section (33 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. 

Price Risk 

31. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

32. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A8

33. On a scale from one to five, if the low price risk crops identified earlier were one and the 

high price risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the 

relative price risk (within the production cycle) faced by producers of these crops in this 

region? Where 1 is low price risk crop and 5 is high price risk crop. 

N/A 

34. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of high prices or low 

prices for these crops? Yes , No . If yes, describe. 

N/A 

35. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low price risk and five is very high price risk 

[of loss of value], provide an overall assessment of price risk (within the production cycle) 

faced by producers of these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low price risk and 5 is very 

high price risk. 

N/A

The questions in this section (36 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. Consequently, this section has been left 

blank. 

Other Sources of Revenue Risk 

36. For this region, describe other factors that affect revenue risk for these crops (e.g., prevented 

planting). 

37. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low risk and five is very high risk, provide an 

overall assessment of risk sources other than yield, quality, and price risks faced by 

producers of these crops in this region. Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

Sufficient Non-Insurance Coping Mechanisms 

38. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the extent to 

which producers of these crops in this region use risk-reducing inputs as a substitute for crop 

insurance. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high.

4

39. Are government crop programs (e.g., marketing loans and counter-cyclical payments) 

available for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A9

Only some of the questions in this section (40 through 53) are relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The relevant questions have been answered. 

40. In this region, is there a history of federal disaster payments for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: The 2008 farm bill authorized the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). TAP provides 

payments to eligible nursery tree producers to cover 70% of the cost of replanting trees or 

nursery stock following a natural disaster. Only some nursery production was covered under 

this program and a $100,000 limit per year per producer applied to payments under TAP. 

The program expired in September of 2011. The Contractor did not identify payments made 

under this program in this region. 

41. Approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is under production 

contract with a first handler or processor? 

Describe contracts: No testimony concerning this was available. 

a. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

production risk (i.e., the grower must deliver on the contract even if production shortfalls 

occur)? Yes , No 

b. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

quality risk (i.e., there are significant price penalties if the product does not meet the 

quality characteristics specified in the contract). Yes , No 

Delivery may be refused based on quality. 

c. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

price risk (i.e., prices for specific quality characteristics are not specified in the contract)? 

Yes , No 

42. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is priced 

prior to harvest (may or may not be tied to a production contract)? 

Describe: For insurance purposes: 100%. For contract sales: 100%. For speculative sales: 

100%. Harvest doesn’t occur until a price agreement has been reached. 

43. When corn farmers in the Midwest experience low (high) yields, they can often expect higher 

(lower) market prices (i.e., prices and yields are very negatively correlated). This moderates 

the revenue impacts of low yields. In contrast, for corn farmers in the Southeast there is very 

little relationship between their yields and market prices (i.e., prices and yields are 

independent). In this region the price and yield for these crops are: Independent, Somewhat 

Negatively Correlated, or Highly Negatively Correlated? 

Independent 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A10

Describe: Prices are influenced by markets, relationships between the buyer and seller, 

varietal differences, quality judgments by the buyer, etc. more than by supply. 

44. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree” and five is “strongly agree,” 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

are financially able to self-insure against production losses.” Where 1 is strongly agree and 5 

is strongly disagree. 

Between 4 and 5 

Describe: In this region, producers are a highly variable group, both in their financial 

sophistication and in their fiscal resources. From discussions with producers, it appears that 

those at the extremes in both these categories are more prepared to self-insure (i.e., the least 

wealthy and wealthiest producers are less risk-averse and prepared to deal with the 

consequences of a significant loss of stock). In the case of the least wealthy producers, 

coping or seeking alternative revenue sources was the most commonly identified strategy, 

while the wealthiest producers have the resources to self-insure as a straight forward 

financial strategy. 

45. For a typical grower of these crops, approximately what percentage of the total farm revenue 

would be attributable to these crops? 

80-100 % (i.e., many of the producers of nursery crops grow only nursery crops). 

46. What other commodities would typically* be produced on a farm that produces these 

commodities? What is the correlation between revenue from these other commodities and 

the revenue from these commodities? For correlation use a scale of one to five, where 1 is 

“strongly negatively correlated,” 2 is “negatively correlated,“ 3 “independent,“ 4 is 

“positively correlated,“ and 5 is “strongly positively correlated.” 

*Typically is an inappropriate concept for production of nursery crops in this region by this 

cohort of producers. 

N/A 

47. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is 

produced by part-time farmers who have full-time employment off the farm? 

Based on testimony, 25 to 50%.

48. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree“ and five is “strongly agree,“ 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

attempt to manage production risk by spreading their production over several geographic 

locations.” 

No testimony concerning this was available. 

Describe: N/A. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A11

49. In this region, what private-sector insurance products (if any) are currently available for these 

crops? 

List all: It is possible to insure some of the perennial crop stock against fire through private 

contract, although such insurance is neither a standard product nor generally marketed. 

Private named peril insurance for trees (http://www.liveassetinsurance.com/index.htm) is 

available but the Contractor found no evidence it is used by producers. 

50. Characterize how agricultural lenders in this region view the available RMA-facilitated 

insurance products for these crops (using Unfavorable, Indifferent, or Favorable). 

“Unfavorable” implies that lenders actually discourage borrowers from purchasing the 

product while “favorable” implies that lenders strongly encourage and often require 

borrowers to purchase the product. If multiple insurance products are offered, answer for 

each product. 

Describe: The insurance is viewed favorably by lenders. 

Loan underwriting is enormously influenced by individual credit history, which is highly 

variable because of the diverse characteristics of the operations that produce nursery crops. 

51. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the 

sufficiency of non-insurance coping mechanisms for producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is highly sufficient and 5 is highly insufficient. 

2 to 3 

Risk Classification 

52. On a scale from one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree, provide 

your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, no producers of these crops are 

really any more or less risky than any others. They all face about the same risk of loss.” 

Where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree 

2

Describe: Weather in the region is variable. Some producers have greater variety of types 

and of varieties within types, increasing their potential for losses resulting from weather 

perils, but decreasing the effects of these losses on the financial condition of the operation. 

Maintenance practices can influence the ability of the nursery crops to tolerate perils. 

53. In this region, for those who are currently not insured, would you say that premium rate on 

the existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about 

right,” or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for 

each product. 

About right. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A12

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

54. In this region, for those who currently are insured, would you say that premium rate on the 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about right,” 

or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for each 

product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

55. For this region, to what extent does the system used to establish the guarantee (e.g., APH 

yield or expected revenue) for this crop match the true value of the production at risk? An 

answer of one indicates that the system used to establish the guarantee does a very poor job 

of matching the true value of the production at risk. An answer of five indicates that the 

system used to establish the guarantee does a very good job of matching the true value of the 

production at risk. 

Producers report the value of their production is generally underestimated by the inventory 

system. This is particularly true for new varieties. 

56. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the 

effectiveness of existing RMA-facilitated insurance products in accurately classifying 

potential policyholders according to their loss exposure (i.e., higher risk growers pay higher 

premiums while lower risk growers pay lower premiums). Where 1 is very low and 5 is very 

high. 

2, the producers have very different levels of sophistication in their operations. The 

premiums do not reflect these differences. 

Moral Hazard and Monitoring 

57. Yield variation [Inventory loss] can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable 

“acts of management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated crop insurance product for 

these crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is 

low and five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. 

4

58. To the extent that management affects yield loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to monitor 

the insured’s behavior? 

Difficult 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A13

Explain: Since the indemnities are triggered by weather events, the losses that are purely tied 

to management practices are generally obvious. However, a weak nursery plant is less likely 

to survive a weather peril. Consequently, these multifactorial losses are more difficult to 

adjust. 

59. Quality variation can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable “acts of 

management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated insurance product for these 

crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is low and 

five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are offered, 

answer for each product. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high 

N/A. Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the same way they do to a yieldbased crop insurance. 

60. To the extent that management affects quality loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to 

monitor the insured’s behavior? 

N/A, Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to yield-based 

crop insurance. 

61. On a scale from one to five, where one is very large and five is very small, assess the extent 

of moral hazard problems with existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop. 

3

Problems Affecting Insurance Participation 

62. Have significant problems occurred (either past or current) with policy provisions on [the] 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for the crop? If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. Yes , No 

63. If the answer to the previous question is no, go to next question. If yes, for each significant 

problem: 

a. Briefly describe the problem. 

This is an extremely complex insurance product. There is no question the complexity 

has led insureds to believe they had coverage they did not have. There is also 

evidence the loss adjustment process has not been perceived as fair to the insureds. 

b. What has been the impact of the problem (e.g., high loss ratios, reduced demand, 

etc.)? 

Reduced demand. 

c. Have policy provisions since been changed to adequately address the problem? 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A14

While the provisions have been changed several times, the issues have not been 

resolved to the satisfaction of producers. 

d. If policy provisions have not been changed, what changes in policy provisions do you 

think would increase insurance demand for this crop? 

Everyone who expressed an opinion would like to see the policy simplified. 

64. In this region, do reinsured companies have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new 

or existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

The administrative costs of the insurance are very high. The premiums are modest. The 

reinsured companies in many cases would be happy to not write a nursery policy. 

65. In this region, do agents have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new or existing 

RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

66. List any perils that concern growers of these crops but are not covered by existing RMAfacilitated insurance products (e.g., business interruption due to unavailability of irrigation 

water, disease quarantines, etc.). For each peril assess the extent of growers’ concerns about 

this peril on a scale from one to five where one is minor concern and five is major concern. 

Improper requirement for rehabilitation: 5 

Requirement to insure rehabilitating stock: 4 

Varietal changes: 4 

67.Briefly describe the potential for insuring these currently uninsured perils? In answering this, 

consider the following questions: 

Can hidden action/moral hazard and classification/adverse selection problems be avoided? 

Can clearly stated policy provisions be developed and accurate premium rates established? 

These are not insurable perils. 

68. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the likelihood 

that problems affecting participation can be adequately addressed by product or policy 

modifications. 

3
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A15

This program could be made attractive to many producers resulting in increased

participation, especially at buy-up levels. Producers want insurance. They are just unhappy 

with the current product. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A16

Exhibit 2 

Southeastern States 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A17

Program Evaluation Diagnostic Questions – Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program 

Region Southeast 

Typical Crops Nursery plants in various sizes, including annuals, biennials, herbaceous 

perennials, and woody species of a wide range of types. 

Market fresh , processed , other marketed as container, bare 

root, and balled and burlap plants. 

Background Information 

Production Processes 

Annuals 

1. Are the crops planted multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the annual nursery plants are planted multiple times; others are planted just once a 

year. 

2. For a single planting, are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? 

If yes, explain: Yes , No 

Some of the annual nursery plants are harvested multiple times; others are harvested just 

once a year. 

3. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as double crop, fallow, irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, 

etc.). Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including 

potential issues with practices and types. 

Each operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for species, practice, 

and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close proximity to one another with 

irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is influenced by markets 

more than management practices. Soil mixes are proprietary and the soil is sold with the 

production. 

Biennials 

4. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? Yes , No 

Some of the biennial nursery plants are harvested for some markets multiple times; others are 

harvested just once a year. 

5. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A18

As with the annuals, each biennial operation is unique. In general, container plants are 

maintained in close proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest 

management. Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil 

mixes are proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. 

Perennials 

6. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Many of the perennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times; a few are harvested just 

once a year. Some are treated like annual plants, either (a) grown for a year and then 

marketed or (b) purchased as liners or container plants and repotted and grown for a year. 

7. Are the crops alternate bearing? Yes , No 

This question is not relevant for the Nursery Crop Insurance Program. The insured crop is 

the plant itself, not the fruit. 

8. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 

As with the annuals, each perennial operation is unique. The producers have developed 

niche markets for species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in 

close proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. Plants are generally potted up if they are 

not sold. Eventually plants become too large for the market and they are destroyed. 

Field grown plants are less common in the area. They are grown in single or double rows, 

generally with supplemental irrigation. Growth is supported by frequent fertilization, and 

pest management. Turnover in many cases is influenced as much by markets as by 

management practices. The field-grown plants from this area are generally balled and 

burlapped, the root ball and associated soil is dug, wrapped, and tied off. Eventually if plants 

cannot be sold they become too large for the market and are destroyed. 

9. What is the economic life of the capital stock (trees, vines, etc.)? 

3 to 6 weeks to 20 years, depending on the variety, type, and practices. Most are sold within 

3 to 5 years. Palms are maintained even longer.

10. Over its economic life, what is the likelihood that ten percent or more of the capital stock 

would be lost due to natural causes? Describe: 

<1% (probability of loss).
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A19

The capital stock is the crop. The losses of capital stock may not involve loss of entire 

plants, but instead loss of portions of the plants to extreme weather. The effect of such 

partial losses in the short run is similar to the effect of losing whole plants, recovery is 

sometimes possible, depending on the nature of the damage. 

11. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

starts producing saleable output? 

3 months to never.

12. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

is at peak production? 

1 to 10 years to never, depending on the varieties lost.

Nursery 

13. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for nursery crops 

in this region. Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand 

including potential issues with practices and types. 

Nurseries in the region grow plants from seed, from cuttings, and from meristem cloning. 

Nurseries in the region also buy plants produced by these three processes. Some of the 

nursery stock used by nurseries is locally produced; some comes from as far away as China. 

Markets determine the type and practice, however most producers have garnered a particular 

market niche and work to maximize their share within the niche. 

Marketing 

14. Describe typical marketing channels and/or contracting structures for these crops. 

The marketing channels for nursery production vary by operation, and by variety. Many 

producers in the region produce limited types maintained under one practice. Depending on 

the market, production may be sold to a single buyer or multiple buyers. Some production is 

initiated under contract. Less is speculative. 

15. In this region are there critical time periods (i.e., marketing windows) when producers hope 

to market these crops? If so, describe. 

Yes. The windows for sales of most of these nursery crops are very small. 

16. Within the marketing channels and/or contracting structures mentioned above describe how 

quality variations are handled (e.g., off-grade apples in a fresh market system may be 

processed for juice). 

Generally off-grade production in not saleable. The costs of rehabilitation relative to the 

value of the crop generally preclude such actions. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A20

In this region, do federal supply control marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

In this region, do state quality marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

RMA–Facilitated Insurance Products 

17. In this region, what RMA-facilitated insurance products are currently available for these 

crops? List all: 

The Nursery Crop Insurance policy and the AGR policies are the RMA-facilitated insurance 

product currently available for these crops. 

The questions in this section (20 through 26) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. There is 

no yield of nursery production. Consequently, this section has been left blank. 

Yield Risk

18. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative yield risk? Relative risk is 

used to adjust absolute magnitudes that vary across crops to a relative level to facilitate 

comparability (roughly, a measure of variation divided by the mean level). 

19. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative yield risk? 

20. Are these crops exposed to catastrophic risks that would reduce yields by 50 percent or 

more? Yes , No 

21. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic losses to occur? 

Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25

22. Characterize yield risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic yield risk(s) described 

earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the low relative yield risk crops identified earlier were 

one, and the high relative yield risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would 

you assign to the non-catastrophic yield risk associated with these crops in this region? 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A21

23. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of good yields or bad 

yields for these crops? If yes, describe what causes these multiple-year sequences. 

Yes , No . 

24. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low yield risk and five is very high yield risk, 

provide an overall assessment of yield risk faced by producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk 

The questions in this section (27 through 32) are only marginally relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. 

The nursery production has no quality in the sense a harvested crop has quality. 

Consequently, the questions in this section have been answered to reflect the effects on the 

“quality” of the inventory rather than any effects on quality of a harvestable product. 

Quality Risk 

25. In this region what are examples of crops with very low quality risk? 

N/A 

26. In this region what are examples of crops with very high quality risk? 

N/A 

27. Are the crops exposed to catastrophic quality risks that would reduce the average price 

received [marketability] by 20 percent or more? Yes , No 

28. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic quality losses to occur? 

 Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

 Hurricane 0 to 2 

 Flood 0 to 5 

But generally affecting just a small portion of the crop in the region. 

29. We now want to characterize quality risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic quality 

risk(s) described earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the crops with very low risk of 

quality problems identified earlier were one, and the crops with very high risk of quality 

problems identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the quality risk 

associated with these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low quality risk and 5 is very 

high quality risk. 

This question is not relevant to nursery crop insurance 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A22

30. On a scale from one to five, if one is very low quality [marketability] risk and five is very 

high risk, provide an overall assessment of quality risk faced by producers of these crops in 

this region. Where 1 is very low quality survival risk and 5 is very high quality survival risk. 

1

The questions in this section (33 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. 

Price Risk 

31. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

32. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

33. On a scale from one to five, if the low price risk crops identified earlier were one and the 

high price risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the 

relative price risk (within the production cycle) faced by producers of these crops in this 

region? Where 1 is low price risk crop and 5 is high price risk crop. 

N/A 

34. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of high prices or low 

prices for these crops? Yes , No . If yes, describe. 

N/A 

35. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low price risk and five is very high price risk 

[of loss of value], provide an overall assessment of price risk (within the production cycle) 

faced by producers of these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low price risk and 5 is very 

high price risk. 

N/A
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A23

The questions in this section (36 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. Consequently, this section has been left 

blank. 

Other Sources of Revenue Risk 

36. For this region, describe other factors that affect revenue risk for these crops (e.g., prevented 

planting). 

37. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low risk and five is very high risk, provide an 

overall assessment of risk sources other than yield, quality, and price risks faced by 

producers of these crops in this region. Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

Sufficient Non-Insurance Coping Mechanisms 

38. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the extent to 

which producers of these crops in this region use risk-reducing inputs as a substitute for crop 

insurance. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high.

4

39. Are government crop programs (e.g., marketing loans and counter-cyclical payments) 

available for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: 

Only some of the questions in this section (40 through 53) are relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The relevant questions have been answered. 

40. In this region, is there a history of federal disaster payments for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: An agricultural disaster program designed to assist any Florida county that was 

declared a disaster area as a result of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, or Jeanne was declared on 

September 24, 2004. The Florida Hurricane Disaster Assistance Program used existing 

USDA Section 32 funds (estimated by USDA at more than $500 million) to provide direct 

disaster payments to producers of citrus, vegetables and nursery crops based on estimated 

losses. Recipients were subject to an $80,000 payment limit, and were required to have gross 

incomes under $2.5 million (unless 75% of income was derived from farming or forestry). 

An additional $608.5 million in agricultural assistance was made available in H.R. 4837 for 

regions that were severely affected by the series of 2004 hurricanes and tropical storms. 

Included in this amount was $100 million for debris clean-up and repairs on farms and $90 

million for the section 32 Florida Hurricane Disaster Assistance Program for citrus, vegetable 

and nursery crop losses associated with the hurricanes. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A24

41. Approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is under production 

contract with a first handler or processor? 

Describe contracts: Based on testimony, approximately 40% 

a. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

production risk (i.e., the grower must deliver on the contract even if production shortfalls 

occur)? Yes , No 

b. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

quality risk (i.e., there are significant price penalties if the product does not meet the 

quality characteristics specified in the contract). Yes , No 

Delivery may be refused based on quality. 

c. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

price risk (i.e., prices for specific quality characteristics are not specified in the contract)? 

Yes , No 

42. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is priced 

prior to harvest (may or may not be tied to a production contract)? 

Describe: For insurance purposes: 100%. For contract sales: 100%. For speculative sales: 

100%. Harvest doesn’t occur until a price agreement has been reached. 

43. When corn farmers in the Midwest experience low (high) yields, they can often expect higher 

(lower) market prices (i.e., prices and yields are very negatively correlated). This moderates 

the revenue impacts of low yields. In contrast, for corn farmers in the Southeast there is very 

little relationship between their yields and market prices (i.e., prices and yields are 

independent). In this region the price and yield for these crops are: Independent, Somewhat 

Negatively Correlated, or Highly Negatively Correlated? 

Independent 

Describe: Prices are influenced by markets, relationships between the buyer and seller, 

varietal differences, quality judgments by the buyer, etc. more than by supply. 

44. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree” and five is “strongly agree,” 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

are financially able to self-insure against production losses.” Where 1 is strongly agree and 5 

is strongly disagree. 

Between 4 and 5. 

Describe: In this region, producers are a highly variable group, both in their financial 

sophistication and in their fiscal resources. From discussions with producers, it appears that 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A25

those at the extremes in both these categories are more prepared to self-insure (i.e., the least 

wealthy and wealthiest producers are less risk-averse and prepared to deal with the 

consequences of a significant loss of stock). In the case of the least wealthy producers, 

coping or seeking alternative revenue sources was the most commonly identified strategy, 

while the wealthiest producers have the resources to self-insure as a straight-forward 

financial strategy. 

45. For a typical grower of these crops, approximately what percentage of the total farm revenue 

would be attributable to these crops? 

80-100 %. 

46. What other commodities would typically* be produced on a farm that produces these 

commodities? What is the correlation between revenue from these other commodities and 

the revenue from these commodities? For correlation use a scale of one to five, where 1 is 

“strongly negatively correlated,” 2 is “negatively correlated,“ 3 “independent,“ 4 is 

“positively correlated,“ and 5 is “strongly positively correlated.” 

*Typically is an inappropriate concept for production of nursery crops in this region by this 

cohort of producers. 

N/A. 

47. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is 

produced by part-time farmers who have full-time employment off the farm? 

Based on testimony, approximately 25%. 

48. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree“ and five is “strongly agree,“ 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

attempt to manage production risk by spreading their production over several geographic 

locations.” 

3

Describe: Some producers are geographically diversified within the region. This pattern is 

less characteristic of the smallest producers. This pattern is truer for producers whose 

primary income is from nursery crops and the very largest producers. 

49. In this region, what private-sector insurance products (if any) are currently available for these 

crops? 

List all: It is possible to insure some of the perennial crop stock against fire through private 

contract, although such insurance is neither a standard product nor generally marketed. 

Private freeze insurance is available for some crops in the region. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A26

Private named peril insurance for trees is available 

(http://www.liveassetinsurance.com/index.htm) but not in Florida. A principal related to the 

firm offering this insurance indicated he does not expect this line will ever be offered in 

Florida because of the “tail” risk associated with hurricanes. 

50. Characterize how agricultural lenders in this region view the available RMA-facilitated 

insurance products for these crops (using Unfavorable, Indifferent, or Favorable). 

“Unfavorable” implies that lenders actually discourage borrowers from purchasing the 

product while “favorable” implies that lenders strongly encourage and often require 

borrowers to purchase the product. If multiple insurance products are offered, answer for 

each product. 

Describe: The insurance is viewed favorably by lenders. 

The importance of agriculture in the region, and the success of agricultural enterprises have 

had a substantial effect on the general attitude of agricultural lenders. Of course, loan 

underwriting is enormously influenced by individual credit history, which is highly variable 

because of the diverse characteristics of the operations that produce nursery crops. 

51. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the 

sufficiency of non-insurance coping mechanisms for producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is highly sufficient and 5 is highly insufficient. 

2

Risk Classification 

52. On a scale from one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree, provide 

your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, no producers of these crops are 

really any more or less risky than any others. They all face about the same risk of loss.” 

Where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree 

2

Describe: Weather in the region is somewhat variable. Some producers have greater variety 

of types and of varieties within types, increasing their potential for losses resulting from 

weather perils, but decreasing the effects of these losses on the financial condition of the 

operation. Maintenance practices can influence the ability of the nursery crops to tolerate 

perils. 

53. In this region, for those who are currently not insured, would you say that premium rate on 

the existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about 

right,” or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for 

each product. 

About right. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A27

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

54. In this region, for those who currently are insured, would you say that premium rate on the 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about right,” 

or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for each 

product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

55. For this region, to what extent does the system used to establish the guarantee (e.g., APH 

yield or expected revenue) for this crop match the true value of the production at risk? An 

answer of one indicates that the system used to establish the guarantee does a very poor job 

of matching the true value of the production at risk. An answer of five indicates that the 

system used to establish the guarantee does a very good job of matching the true value of the 

production at risk. 

Producers report the value of their production is generally underestimated by the inventory 

system. This is particularly true for new varieties. 

56. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the 

effectiveness of existing RMA-facilitated insurance products in accurately classifying 

potential policyholders according to their loss exposure (i.e., higher risk growers pay higher 

premiums while lower risk growers pay lower premiums). Where 1 is very low and 5 is very 

high. 

2, the producers have very different levels of sophistication in their operations. The 

premiums do not reflect these differences. 

Moral Hazard and Monitoring 

57. Yield variation [Inventory loss] can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable 

“acts of management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated crop insurance product for 

these crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is 

low and five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. 

4. 

58. To the extent that management affects yield loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to monitor 

the insured’s behavior? 

Difficult 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A28

Explain: Since the indemnities are triggered by weather events, the losses that are purely tied 

to management practices are generally obvious. However, a weak nursery plant is less likely 

to survive a weather peril. Consequently, these multifactorial losses are more difficult to 

adjust. 

59. Quality variation can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable “acts of 

management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated insurance product for these 

crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is low and 

five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are offered, 

answer for each product. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high 

N/A. Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to a yieldbased crop insurance. 

60. To the extent that management affects quality loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to 

monitor the insured’s behavior? 

N/A Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to yield-based 

crop insurance. 

61. On a scale from one to five, where one is very large and five is very small, assess the extent 

of moral hazard problems with existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop. 

3

Problems Affecting Insurance Participation 

62. Have significant problems occurred (either past or current) with policy provisions on [the] 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for the crop? If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. Yes , No 

63. If the answer to the previous question is no, go to next question. If yes, for each significant 

problem: 

a. Briefly describe the problem. 

This is an extremely complex insurance product. There is no question the complexity 

has led insureds to believe they had coverage they did not have. There is also 

evidence the loss adjustment process has not been perceived as fair to the insureds. 

b. What has been the impact of the problem (e.g., high loss ratios, reduced demand, 

etc.)? 

Reduced demand. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A29

c. Have policy provisions since been changed to adequately address the problem? 

While the provisions have been changed several times, the issues have not been 

resolved to the satisfaction of producers. 

d. If policy provisions have not been changed, what changes in policy provisions do you 

think would increase insurance demand for this crop? 

Everyone who expressed an opinion, with the exception of one agent, would like to 

see the policy simplified. 

64. In this region, do reinsured companies have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new 

or existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

The administrative costs of the insurance are very high. The premiums are modest. The 

reinsured companies in many cases would be happy to not write a nursery policy. 

65. In this region, do agents have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new or existing 

RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

66. List any perils that concern growers of these crops but are not covered by existing RMAfacilitated insurance products (e.g., business interruption due to unavailability of irrigation 

water, disease quarantines, etc.). For each peril assess the extent of growers’ concerns about 

this peril on a scale from one to five where one is minor concern and five is major concern. 

Labor shortage: 5 

Varietal changes: 4 

Improper requirement for rehabilitation: 5 

Requirement to insure rehabilitating stock: 4 

67.Briefly describe the potential for insuring these currently uninsured perils? In answering this, 

consider the following questions: 

Can hidden action/moral hazard and classification/adverse selection problems be avoided? 

Can clearly stated policy provisions be developed and accurate premium rates established? 

These are not insurable perils, but the last two can be addressed by changes in procedures 

and pricing mechanisms. 

68. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the likelihood 

that problems affecting participation can be adequately addressed by product or policy 

modifications. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A30

1

This program could be made attractive to many producers resulting in increased

participation, especially at buy-up levels. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A31

Exhibit 3 

South-central States 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A32

Program Evaluation Diagnostic Questions – Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program 

Region South-central States 

Typical Crops Nursery plants in various sizes, including annuals, biennials, herbaceous 

perennials, and woody species of a wide range of types. 

Market fresh , processed , other marketed as container, bare root, and 

balled and burlap plants. 

Background Information 

Production Processes 

Annuals 

1. Are the crops planted multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the annual nursery plants are planted multiple times, depending on markets and 

varieties. 

2. For a single planting, are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? 

If yes, explain: Yes , No 

Some producers harvest the annual nursery plants from a single planting multiple times, 

depending on markets and varieties. 

3. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as double crop, fallow, irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, 

etc.). Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including 

potential issues with practices and types. 

Each operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for species, practice, 

and size. In general, liners and container plants are maintained in close proximity to one 

another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is influenced 

by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are proprietary and the soil is sold 

with the production. 

Biennials 

4. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? Yes , No 

A few the biennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times; most are harvested just once 

during the spring 

5. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A33

As with the annuals, each biennial operation is unique. The producers have developed niche 

markets for species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close 

proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. 

Perennials 

6. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the perennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times (especially containerized 

production); others are harvested just once a year (especially perennials harvested bare root 

from field grown production), still others are treated like annual plants (either (a) grown for a 

year and then marketed or (b) purchased as liners or container plants and repotted and grown 

for a year. 

7. Are the crops alternate bearing? Yes , No 

This question is not relevant for the Nursery Crop Insurance Program. The insured crop is 

the plant itself, not the fruit. 

8. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 

As with the annuals, each perennial operation is unique. The producers have developed 

niche markets for species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in 

close proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. Plants are often potted up if they are not 

sold. Eventually as container plants become too large for the market, they are destroyed. 

Field grown plants are grown in single or double rows, with or without irrigation. Growth is 

supported by frequent fertilization, and pest management including herbicide weed control. 

Turnover in many cases is influenced as much by markets as by management practices. 

Individual plants are harvested from the rows. For balled and burlap plants, the root ball and 

associated soil is dug, wrapped, and tied off. Eventually if plants cannot be sold they become 

too large for the market and are destroyed. 

9. What is the economic life of the capital stock (trees, vines, etc.)? 

The crop itself is the capital stock. It is often maintained for 2 to 5 years, although some 

operations may maintain a few plants even older. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A34

10. Over its economic life, what is the likelihood that ten percent or more of the capital stock 

would be lost due to natural causes? Describe: 

Approximately 1% (probability of loss).

The capital stock is the crop. The losses of capital stock may not involve loss of entire 

plants, but only portions of the plants to extreme weather. The effect of such partial losses in 

the short run is similar to the effect of losing whole plants, recovery is sometimes possible, 

depending on the nature of the damage. 

11. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

starts producing saleable output? 

Depends on the variety and market.

12. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

is at peak production? 

Depends on the variety and market.

Nursery 

13. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for nursery crops 

in this region. Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand 

including potential issues with practices and types. 

Nurseries in the region grow plants primarily from seed, cuttings, and purchased liner plants 

(bare root or in containers). Some of the nursery plants purchased by nurseries is locally 

produced; some is imported into the region from other states. Markets determine the types 

planted and the practices to establish the new crop. Most producers have a particular market 

niche and work to maximize their share within the market and to minimize their costs. 

Marketing 

14. Describe typical marketing channels and/or contracting structures for these crops. 

The marketing channels for nursery production vary by operation and variety being sold. 

Many producers in the region produce limited types and varieties, often but not always 

maintained under one practice. Depending on the market, production may be sold to a single 

buyer or multiple buyers. Some production is under contract. Some is speculative. 

15. In this region are there critical time periods (i.e., marketing windows) when producers hope 

to market these crops? If so, describe. 

Yes. The windows for sales of most of these nursery crops are very small. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A35

16. Within the marketing channels and/or contracting structures mentioned above describe how 

quality variations are handled (e.g., off-grade apples in a fresh market system may be 

processed for juice). 

Generally off grade production in not saleable. Rehabilitation of off-grade plants results in 

the production of plants which are often out of compliance with the terms of sales 

agreements. 

In this region, do federal supply control marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

In this region, do state quality marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

RMA–Facilitated Insurance Products 

17. In this region, what RMA-facilitated insurance products are currently available for these 

crops? List all: 

The Nursery Crop Insurance policy and the AGR policies are the RMA-facilitated insurance 

product currently available for these crops. However, AGR and/or AGR-Lite are not 

available in all the south-central states. Furthermore, these products are not generally 

considered to be well-suited to nursery crop production. 

The questions in this section (20 through 26) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. There is 

no yield of nursery production. Consequently, this section has been left blank. 

Yield Risk 

18. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative yield risk? Relative risk is 

used to adjust absolute magnitudes that vary across crops to a relative level to facilitate 

comparability (roughly, a measure of variation divided by the mean level). 

19. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative yield risk? 

20. Are these crops exposed to catastrophic risks that would reduce yields by 50 percent or 

more? Yes , No 

21. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic losses to occur? 

Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A36

22. Characterize yield risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic yield risk(s) described 

earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the low relative yield risk crops identified earlier were 

one, and the high relative yield risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would 

you assign to the non-catastrophic yield risk associated with these crops in this region? 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk 

23. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of good yields or bad 

yields for these crops? If yes, describe what causes these multiple-year sequences. 

Yes , No . 

24. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low yield risk and five is very high yield risk, 

provide an overall assessment of yield risk faced by producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk 

The questions in this section (27 through 32) are only marginally relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. 

The nursery production has no quality in the sense a harvested crop has quality. 

Consequently, the questions in this section have been answered to reflect the effects on the 

“quality” of the inventory rather than any effects on quality of a harvestable product. 

Quality Risk 

25. In this region what are examples of crops with very low quality risk? 

N/A 

26. In this region what are examples of crops with very high quality risk? 

N/A 

27. Are the crops exposed to catastrophic quality risks that would reduce the average price 

received [marketability] by 20 percent or more? Yes , No 

28. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic quality losses to occur?

 Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

Drought 1

Hurricane 0 to 2 

Flood 0 to 5 

But generally affecting just a small portion of the crop in the region. 

29. We now want to characterize quality risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic quality 

risk(s) described earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the crops with very low risk of 

quality problems identified earlier were one, and the crops with very high risk of quality 

problems identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the quality risk 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A37

associated with these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low quality risk and 5 is very 

high quality risk. 

This question is not relevant to nursery crop insurance 

30. On a scale from one to five, if one is very low quality [marketability] risk and five is very 

high risk, provide an overall assessment of quality risk faced by producers of these crops in 

this region. Where 1 is very low quality survival risk and 5 is very high quality survival risk. 

1

The questions in this section (33 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. 

Price Risk 

31. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

32. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

33. On a scale from one to five, if the low price risk crops identified earlier were one and the 

high price risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the 

relative price risk (within the production cycle) faced by producers of these crops in this 

region? Where 1 is low price risk crop and 5 is high price risk crop. 

N/A 

34. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of high prices or low 

prices for these crops? Yes , No . If yes, describe. 

N/A 

35. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low price risk and five is very high price risk 

[of loss of value], provide an overall assessment of price risk (within the production cycle) 

faced by producers of these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low price risk and 5 is very 

high price risk. 

N/A
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A38

The questions in this section (36 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. Consequently, this section has been left 

blank. 

Other Sources of Revenue Risk 

36. For this region, describe other factors that affect revenue risk for these crops (e.g., prevented 

planting). 

37. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low risk and five is very high risk, provide an 

overall assessment of risk sources other than yield, quality, and price risks faced by 

producers of these crops in this region. Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

Sufficient Non-Insurance Coping Mechanisms 

38. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the extent to 

which producers of these crops in this region use risk-reducing inputs as a substitute for crop 

insurance. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high.

3 to 4 

39. Are government crop programs (e.g., marketing loans and counter-cyclical payments) 

available for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: 

Only some of the questions in this section (40 through 53) are relevant to the FFT (Pilot) 

Insurance Program. The relevant questions have been answered. 

40. In this region, is there a history of federal disaster payments for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: in 2011, the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) was funded to provide 

resources for rehabilitation of farmland damaged by a natural disaster. The TAP program 

was also available, although restrictions applied for nursery production. 

41. Approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is under production 

contract with a first handler or processor? 

Describe contracts: Based on limited testimony, approximately half of the total production of 

these crops is under production contract with a first handler. 

a. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

production risk (i.e., the grower must deliver on the contract even if production shortfalls 

occur)? Yes , No 

b. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

quality risk (i.e., there are significant price penalties if the product does not meet the 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A39

quality characteristics specified in the contract). Yes , No 

Delivery may be refused based on quality. 

c. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

price risk (i.e., prices for specific quality characteristics are not specified in the contract)? 

Yes , No 

Production is either accepted or rejected. 

42. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is priced 

prior to harvest (may or may not be tied to a production contract)? 

Describe: 100%. Harvest doesn’t occur until a price agreement has been reached. 

43. When corn farmers in the Midwest experience low (high) yields, they can often expect higher 

(lower) market prices (i.e., prices and yields are very negatively correlated). This moderates 

the revenue impacts of low yields. In contrast, for corn farmers in the Southeast there is very 

little relationship between their yields and market prices (i.e., prices and yields are 

independent). In this region the price and yield for these crops are: Independent, Somewhat 

Negatively Correlated, or Highly Negatively Correlated? 

Independent 

Describe: Prices are influenced by markets, relationships between the buyer and seller, 

varietal differences, quality judgments by the buyer, etc. more than by supply. 

44. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree” and five is “strongly agree,” 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

are financially able to self-insure against production losses.” Where 1 is strongly agree and 5 

is strongly disagree. 

Between 3 and 5, depending on the producer. 

Describe: In this region, producers are a highly variable group, both in their financial 

sophistication and in their fiscal resources. The least wealthy and wealthiest producers are 

less risk-averse and prepared to deal with the consequences of a significant loss. In the case 

of the least wealthy producers, alternative revenue sources were the most commonly 

identified strategy; the wealthier producers often self-insure as financial decision. 

45. For a typical grower of these crops, approximately what percentage of the total farm revenue 

would be attributable to these crops? 

50 - 100 %, although the concept of typical is misleading in this industry. Each operation is 

unique.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A40

46. What other commodities would typically* be produced on a farm that produces these 

commodities? What is the correlation between revenue from these other commodities and 

the revenue from these commodities? For correlation use a scale of one to five, where 1 is 

“strongly negatively correlated,” 2 is “negatively correlated,“ 3 “independent,“ 4 is 

“positively correlated,“ and 5 is “strongly positively correlated.” 

*Typically is an inappropriate concept for production of nursery crops in this region by this 

cohort of producers. 

N/A 

47. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is 

produced by part-time farmers who have full-time employment off the farm? 

Based on testimony, approximately 33%. 

48. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree“ and five is “strongly agree,“ 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

attempt to manage production risk by spreading their production over several geographic 

locations.” 

2

Describe: Few producers are geographically diversified within the region. The smaller 

producers are less likely to have any geographic diversity. 

49. In this region, what private-sector insurance products (if any) are currently available for these 

crops? 

List all: It is possible to insure some of the perennial crop stock against fire through private 

contract, although such insurance is neither a standard product nor generally marketed. 

Private freeze insurance is available as is private named peril insurance for trees is available 

(http://www.liveassetinsurance.com/index.htm). 

50. Characterize how agricultural lenders in this region view the available RMA-facilitated 

insurance products for these crops (using Unfavorable, Indifferent, or Favorable). 

“Unfavorable” implies that lenders actually discourage borrowers from purchasing the 

product while “favorable” implies that lenders strongly encourage and often require 

borrowers to purchase the product. If multiple insurance products are offered, answer for 

each product. 

Describe: The insurance is viewed favorably by lenders. 

The importance of agriculture in the region, and the success of agricultural enterprises have 

had a substantial effect on the general attitude of lenders. Loan underwriting is enormously 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A41

influenced by individual credit history, which is highly variable because of the diverse 

characteristics of the operations that produce nursery crops. 

51. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the 

sufficiency of non-insurance coping mechanisms for producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is highly sufficient and 5 is highly insufficient. 

2

Risk Classification 

52. On a scale from one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree, provide 

your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, no producers of these crops are 

really any more or less risky than any others. They all face about the same risk of loss.” 

Where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree 

2

Describe: Producers with a greater range of types and of varieties within types decreasing 

the effects of losses on the financial condition of the operation. Maintenance practices can 

influence the ability of the nursery crops to tolerate perils. 

53. In this region, for those who are currently not insured, would you say that premium rate on 

the existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about 

right,” or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for 

each product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

54. In this region, for those who currently are insured, would you say that premium rate on the 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about right,” 

or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for each 

product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

55. For this region, to what extent does the system used to establish the guarantee (e.g., APH 

yield or expected revenue) for this crop match the true value of the production at risk? An 

answer of one indicates that the system used to establish the guarantee does a very poor job 

of matching the true value of the production at risk. An answer of five indicates that the 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A42

system used to establish the guarantee does a very good job of matching the true value of the 

production at risk. 

Producers report the value of their production is generally underestimated by the inventory 

system. This is particularly true for new varieties. 

56. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the 

effectiveness of existing RMA-facilitated insurance products in accurately classifying 

potential policyholders according to their loss exposure (i.e., higher risk growers pay higher 

premiums while lower risk growers pay lower premiums). Where 1 is very low and 5 is very 

high. 

3 to 4, the producers have different levels of sophistication in their operations. The 

premiums do not reflect these differences, but the differences are less extreme than in the 

Northeast and southeastern regions. 

Moral Hazard and Monitoring 

57. Yield variation [Inventory loss] can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable 

“acts of management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated crop insurance product for 

these crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is 

low and five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product 

4. 

58. To the extent that management affects yield loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to monitor 

the insured’s behavior? 

Difficult

Explain: Since the indemnities are triggered by weather events, the losses that are purely tied 

to management practices are generally obvious. However, a weak nursery plant is less likely 

to survive a weather peril. Consequently, these multifactorial losses are more difficult to 

adjust. 

59. Quality variation can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable “acts of 

management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated insurance product for these 

crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is low and 

five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are offered, 

answer for each product. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high 

N/A. Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to a yieldbased crop insurance. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A43

60. To the extent that management affects quality loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to 

monitor the insured’s behavior? 

N/A Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to yield-based 

crop insurance. 

61. On a scale from one to five, where one is very large and five is very small, assess the extent 

of moral hazard problems with existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop. 

3

Problems Affecting Insurance Participation 

62. Have significant problems occurred (either past or current) with policy provisions on [the] 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for the crop? If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. Yes , No 

63. If the answer to the previous question is no, go to next question. If yes, for each significant 

problem: 

a. Briefly describe the problem. 

This is an extremely complex insurance product. The complexity has led some 

insureds to believe they had coverage they did not have. There was substantial 

testimony the loss adjustment process has not been perceived as fair. 

b. What has been the impact of the problem (e.g., high loss ratios, reduced demand, 

etc.)? 

Reduced demand. 

c. Have policy provisions since been changed to adequately address the problem? 

While the provisions have been changed several times, the issues have not been 

resolved to the satisfaction of producers. 

d. If policy provisions have not been changed, what changes in policy provisions do you 

think would increase insurance demand for this crop? 

Everyone who expressed an opinion, with the exception of one agent, would like to 

see the policy simplified. 

64. In this region, do reinsured companies have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new 

or existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A44

The administrative costs of the insurance are very high. The premiums are modest. The 

reinsured companies in many cases would be happy to not write a nursery policy. 

65. In this region, do agents have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new or existing 

RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

66. List any perils that concern growers of these crops but are not covered by existing RMAfacilitated insurance products (e.g., business interruption due to unavailability of irrigation 

water, disease quarantines, etc.). For each peril assess the extent of growers’ concerns about 

this peril on a scale from one to five where one is minor concern and five is major concern. 

Labor shortage: 5 

Improper requirement for rehabilitation: 5 

Requirement to insure rehabilitating stock: 4 

67.Briefly describe the potential for insuring these currently uninsured perils? In answering this, 

consider the following questions: 

Can hidden action/moral hazard and classification/adverse selection problems be avoided? 

Can clearly stated policy provisions be developed and accurate premium rates established? 

These are not insurable perils, but the last two can be addressed by changes in procedures 

and pricing mechanisms. 

68. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the likelihood 

that problems affecting participation can be adequately addressed by product or policy 

modifications. 

1

This program could be made attractive to many producers resulting in increased

participation, especially at buy-up levels. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A45

Exhibit 4 

Texas and Oklahoma 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A46

Program Evaluation Diagnostic Questions – Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program 

Region Texas and Oklahoma 

Typical Crops Nursery plants in various sizes, including annuals, biennials, herbaceous 

perennials, and woody species of a wide range of types. 

Market fresh , processed , other marketed as container, bare root, and 

balled and burlap plants. 

Background Information 

Production Processes 

Annuals 

1. Are the crops planted multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the annual nursery plants are planted multiple times, depending on markets and 

varieties. 

2. For a single planting, are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? 

If yes, explain: Yes , No 

Some producers harvest the annual nursery plants from a single planting multiple times, 

depending on markets and varieties. Most plant them for a specific harvest date. 

3. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as double crop, fallow, irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, 

etc.). Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including 

potential issues with practices and types. 

Each operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for species, practice, 

and size. In general, liners and container plants are maintained in close proximity to one 

another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is influenced 

by markets more than management practices. 

Biennials 

4. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? Yes , No 

Most are harvested just once during the spring. Some also have a fall harvest period. 

5. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 

As with the annuals, each biennial operation is unique. The producers have developed niche 

markets for species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A47

proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. Biennials are not generally field-grown. 

Perennials 

6. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the perennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times (especially containerized 

production); others are harvested just once a year (especially perennials harvested bare root 

from field grown production), still others are treated like annual plants, either (a) grown for a 

year and then marketed or (b) purchased as liners or container plants and repotted and grown 

for a year. 

7. Are the crops alternate bearing? Yes , No 

This question is not relevant for the Nursery Crop Insurance Program. The insured crop is 

the plant itself, not the fruit. 

8. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 

Each perennial operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for 

species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close proximity to 

one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is 

influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are proprietary and the 

soil is sold with the production. Plants are often potted up if they are not sold. Eventually as 

container plants become too large for the market, they are destroyed. 

Field grown plants are grown in single or double rows, with or without irrigation. Growth is 

supported by frequent fertilization, and pest management including herbicide weed control. 

Turnover in many cases is influenced as much by markets as by management practices. 

Individual plants are harvested from the rows. For balled and burlap plants, the root ball and 

associated soil is dug, wrapped, and tied off. Eventually if plants can not be sold they 

become too large for the market and are destroyed. 

9. What is the economic life of the capital stock (trees, vines, etc.)? 

The crop itself is the capital stock. It may be maintained for 2 to 5 years, although some 

operations maintain even older plants.

10. Over its economic life, what is the likelihood that ten percent or more of the capital stock 

would be lost due to natural causes? 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A48

Describe: Approximately 1% (probability of loss).

The capital stock is the crop. The losses of capital stock may not involve loss of entire 

plants, but only portions of the plants to extreme weather. The effect of such partial losses in 

the short run is similar to the effect of losing whole plants, recovery is sometimes possible, 

depending on the nature of the damage. 

11. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

starts producing saleable output? 

Depends on the variety and market.

12. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

is at peak production? 

Depends on the variety and market.

Nursery 

13. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for nursery crops 

in this region. Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand 

including potential issues with practices and types. 

Nurseries in the region grow plants primarily from seed, cuttings, and purchased liner plants 

(bare root or in containers). Some of the nursery plants purchased by nurseries are locally 

produced; some are imported into the region from other states. Markets determine the types 

planted and the practices to establish the new crop. Most producers have a particular market 

niche and work to maximize their share within the market and to minimize their costs. 

Marketing 

14. Describe typical marketing channels and/or contracting structures for these crops. 

The marketing channels for nursery production vary by operation and variety being sold. 

Many producers in the region produce limited types and varieties, often but not always 

maintained under one practice. Depending on the market, production may be sold to a single 

buyer or multiple buyers. Some production is under contract. Some is speculative. 

15. In this region are there critical time periods (i.e., marketing windows) when producers hope 

to market these crops? If so, describe. 

Yes. The windows for sales of most of these nursery crops are very small. 

16. Within the marketing channels and/or contracting structures mentioned above describe how 

quality variations are handled (e.g., off-grade apples in a fresh market system may be 

processed for juice). 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A49

Generally off grade production in not saleable. Rehabilitation of off-grade plants results in 

the production of plants which are often out of compliance with the terms of sales 

agreements. 

In this region, do federal supply control marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

In this region, do state quality marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

RMA–Facilitated Insurance Products 

17. In this region, what RMA-facilitated insurance products are currently available for these 

crops? List all: 

The Nursery Crop Insurance policy is the RMA-facilitated insurance product currently 

available for these crops. 

The questions in this section (20 through 26) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. There is 

no yield of nursery production. Consequently, this section has been left blank. 

Yield Risk 

18. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative yield risk? Relative risk is 

used to adjust absolute magnitudes that vary across crops to a relative level to facilitate 

comparability (roughly, a measure of variation divided by the mean level). 

19. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative yield risk? 

20. Are these crops exposed to catastrophic risks that would reduce yields by 50 percent or 

more? Yes , No 

21. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic losses to occur? 

Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

22. Characterize yield risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic yield risk(s) described 

earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the low relative yield risk crops identified earlier were 

one, and the high relative yield risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would 

you assign to the non-catastrophic yield risk associated with these crops in this region? 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A50

23. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of good yields or bad 

yields for these crops? If yes, describe what causes these multiple-year sequences. 

Yes , No . 

24. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low yield risk and five is very high yield risk, 

provide an overall assessment of yield risk faced by producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

The questions in this section (27 through 32) are only marginally relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. 

The nursery production has no quality in the sense a harvested crop has quality. 

Consequently, the questions in this section have been answered to reflect the effects on the 

“quality” of the inventory rather than any effects on quality of a harvestable product. 

Quality Risk 

25. In this region what are examples of crops with very low quality risk? 

N/A 

26. In this region what are examples of crops with very high quality risk? 

N/A 

27. Are the crops exposed to catastrophic quality risks that would reduce the average price 

received [marketability] by 20 percent or more? Yes , No 

28. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic quality losses to occur? 

 Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

Drought 1

Hurricane 0 to 2 

Flood 0 to 5 

But generally affecting just a small portion of the crop in the region. 

29. We now want to characterize quality risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic quality 

risk(s) described earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the crops with very low risk of 

quality problems identified earlier were one, and the crops with very high risk of quality 

problems identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the quality risk 

associated with these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low quality risk and 5 is very 

high quality risk. 

This question is not relevant to nursery crop insurance. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A51

30. On a scale from one to five, if one is very low quality [marketability] risk and five is very 

high risk, provide an overall assessment of quality risk faced by producers of these crops in 

this region. Where 1 is very low quality survival risk and 5 is very high quality survival risk. 

1

The questions in this section (33 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. 

Price Risk 

31. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

32. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

33. On a scale from one to five, if the low price risk crops identified earlier were one and the 

high price risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the 

relative price risk (within the production cycle) faced by producers of these crops in this 

region? Where 1 is low price risk crop and 5 is high price risk crop. 

N/A 

34. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of high prices or low 

prices for these crops? Yes , No . If yes, describe. 

N/A 

35. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low price risk and five is very high price risk 

[of loss of value], provide an overall assessment of price risk (within the production cycle) 

faced by producers of these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low price risk and 5 is very 

high price risk. 

N/A
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A52

The questions in this section (36 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. Consequently, this section has been left 

blank. 

Other Sources of Revenue Risk 

36. For this region, describe other factors that affect revenue risk for these crops (e.g., prevented 

planting). 

37. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low risk and five is very high risk, provide an 

overall assessment of risk sources other than yield, quality, and price risks faced by 

producers of these crops in this region. Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

Sufficient Non-Insurance Coping Mechanisms 

38. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the extent to 

which producers of these crops in this region use risk-reducing inputs as a substitute for crop 

insurance. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high.

3

39. Are government crop programs (e.g., marketing loans and counter-cyclical payments) 

available for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: 

Only some of the questions in this section (40 through 53) are relevant to the FFT (Pilot) 

Insurance Program. The relevant questions have been answered. 

40. In this region, is there a history of federal disaster payments for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: In 2011, the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) was funded to provide 

resources for rehabilitation of farmland damaged by a natural disaster. The TAP program 

was also available, although restrictions applied for nursery production. 

41. Approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is under production 

contract with a first handler or processor? 

50%. 

Describe contracts: Based on limited testimony, approximately half of the total production of 

these crops is under production contract with a first handler 

a. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

production risk (i.e., the grower must deliver on the contract even if production shortfalls 

occur)? Yes , No 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A53

b. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

quality risk (i.e., there are significant price penalties if the product does not meet the 

quality characteristics specified in the contract). Yes , No 

Delivery may be refused based on quality. 

c. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

price risk (i.e., prices for specific quality characteristics are not specified in the contract)? 

Yes , No 

Production is either accepted or rejected. 

42. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is priced 

prior to harvest (may or may not be tied to a production contract)? 

Describe: 100%. Harvest doesn’t occur until a price agreement has been reached. 

43. When corn farmers in the Midwest experience low (high) yields, they can often expect higher 

(lower) market prices (i.e., prices and yields are very negatively correlated). This moderates 

the revenue impacts of low yields. In contrast, for corn farmers in the Southeast there is very 

little relationship between their yields and market prices (i.e., prices and yields are 

independent). In this region the price and yield for these crops are: Independent, Somewhat 

Negatively Correlated, or Highly Negatively Correlated? 

Independent 

Describe: Prices are influenced by markets, relationships between the buyer and seller, 

varietal differences, quality judgments by the buyer, etc. more than by supply. 

44. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree” and five is “strongly agree,” 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

are financially able to self-insure against production losses.” Where 1 is strongly agree and 5 

is strongly disagree. 

Between 3 and 5, depending on the producer. 

Describe: In this region, producers are a highly variable group, both in their financial 

sophistication and in their fiscal resources. The least wealthy and wealthiest producers are 

less risk-averse and prepared to deal with the consequences of a significant loss. In the case 

of the least wealthy producers, alternative revenue sources were the most commonly 

identified strategy; the wealthier producers often self-insure as financial decision. 

45. For a typical grower of these crops, approximately what percentage of the total farm revenue 

would be attributable to these crops? 

50 - 100 %, although the concept of typical is misleading in this industry. Each operation is 

unique.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A54

46. What other commodities would typically* be produced on a farm that produces these 

commodities? What is the correlation between revenue from these other commodities and 

the revenue from these commodities? For correlation use a scale of one to five, where 1 is 

“strongly negatively correlated,” 2 is “negatively correlated,“ 3 “independent,“ 4 is 

“positively correlated,“ and 5 is “strongly positively correlated.” 

*Typically is an inappropriate concept for production of nursery crops in this region by this 

cohort of producers. 

N/A 

47. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is 

produced by part-time farmers who have full-time employment off the farm? 

Based on testimony, approximately 45 to 50%. 

48. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree“ and five is “strongly agree,“ 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

attempt to manage production risk by spreading their production over several geographic 

locations.” 

2

Describe: Few producers are geographically diversified within the region. The smaller 

producers are less likely to have any geographic diversity. 

49. In this region, what private-sector insurance products (if any) are currently available for these 

crops? 

List all: It is possible to insure some of the perennial crop stock against fire through private 

contract, although such insurance is neither a standard product nor generally marketed. 

Private freeze insurance is available as is private named peril insurance for 

trees(http://www.liveassetinsurance.com/index.htm). 

50. Characterize how agricultural lenders in this region view the available RMA-facilitated 

insurance products for these crops (using Unfavorable, Indifferent, or Favorable). 

“Unfavorable” implies that lenders actually discourage borrowers from purchasing the 

product while “favorable” implies that lenders strongly encourage and often require 

borrowers to purchase the product. If multiple insurance products are offered, answer for 

each product. 

Describe: The insurance is viewed favorably by lenders. 

The importance of agriculture in the region and the success of agricultural operations have 

had a substantial effect on the general attitude of lenders. Loan underwriting is enormously 

influenced by individual credit history, which is highly variable because of the diverse 

characteristics of the operations that produce nursery crops. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A55

51. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the 

sufficiency of non-insurance coping mechanisms for producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is highly sufficient and 5 is highly insufficient. 

2

Risk Classification 

52. On a scale from one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree, provide 

your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, no producers of these crops are 

really any more or less risky than any others. They all face about the same risk of loss.” 

Where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree 

2

Describe: Producers with a greater range of types and of varieties within types have less risk 

of substantial losses. Maintenance practices can influence the ability of the nursery crops to 

tolerate perils. 

53. In this region, for those who are currently not insured, would you say that premium rate on 

the existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about 

right,” or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for 

each product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

54. In this region, for those who currently are insured, would you say that premium rate on the 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about right,” 

or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for each 

product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

55. For this region, to what extent does the system used to establish the guarantee (e.g., APH 

yield or expected revenue) for this crop match the true value of the production at risk? An 

answer of one indicates that the system used to establish the guarantee does a very poor job 

of matching the true value of the production at risk. An answer of five indicates that the 

system used to establish the guarantee does a very good job of matching the true value of the 

production at risk. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A56

Producers report the value of their production is generally underestimated by the inventory 

system. 

56. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the 

effectiveness of existing RMA-facilitated insurance products in accurately classifying 

potential policyholders according to their loss exposure (i.e., higher risk growers pay higher 

premiums while lower risk growers pay lower premiums). Where 1 is very low and 5 is very 

high. 

3 to 4, the producers have different levels of sophistication in their operations. The 

premiums do not reflect these differences, but the differences are less extreme than in the 

Northeast and southeastern regions. 

Moral Hazard and Monitoring 

57. Yield variation [Inventory loss] can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable 

“acts of management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated crop insurance product for 

these crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is 

low and five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. 

4. 

58. To the extent that management affects yield loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to monitor 

the insured’s behavior? 

Difficult

Explain: Since the indemnities are triggered by weather events, the losses that are purely tied 

to management practices are generally obvious. However, a weak nursery plant is less likely 

to survive a weather peril. Consequently, these multifactorial losses are more difficult to 

adjust. 

59. Quality variation can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable “acts of 

management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated insurance product for these 

crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is low and 

five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are offered, 

answer for each product. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high. 

N/A. Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to a yieldbased crop insurance. 

60. To the extent that management affects quality loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to 

monitor the insured’s behavior? 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A57

N/A Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to yield-based 

crop insurance. 

61. On a scale from one to five, where one is very large and five is very small, assess the extent 

of moral hazard problems with existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop. 

3 to 4 

Problems Affecting Insurance Participation 

62. Have significant problems occurred (either past or current) with policy provisions on [the] 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for the crop? If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. Yes , No 

63. If the answer to the previous question is no, go to next question. If yes, for each significant 

problem: 

a. Briefly describe the problem. 

This is an extremely complex insurance product. The complexity has led some 

insureds to believe they had coverage they did not have. There was substantial 

testimony the loss adjustment process has not been perceived as fair. 

b. What has been the impact of the problem (e.g., high loss ratios, reduced demand, 

etc.)? 

Reduced demand. 

c. Have policy provisions since been changed to adequately address the problem? 

While the provisions have been changed several times, the issues have not been 

resolved to the satisfaction of producers. 

d. If policy provisions have not been changed, what changes in policy provisions do you 

think would increase insurance demand for this crop? 

Everyone who expressed an opinion, with the exception of one agent, would like to 

see the policy simplified. 

64. In this region, do reinsured companies have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new 

or existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

The administrative costs of the insurance are very high. The premiums are modest. The 

reinsured companies in many cases would be happy to not write a nursery policy. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A58

65. In this region, do agents have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new or existing 

RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

66. List any perils that concern growers of these crops but are not covered by existing RMAfacilitated insurance products (e.g., business interruption due to unavailability of irrigation 

water, disease quarantines, etc.). For each peril assess the extent of growers’ concerns about 

this peril on a scale from one to five where one is minor concern and five is major concern. 

Labor shortage: 5 

Improper requirement for rehabilitation: 5 

Requirement to insure rehabilitating stock: 4 

67.Briefly describe the potential for insuring these currently uninsured perils? In answering this, 

consider the following questions: 

Can hidden action/moral hazard and classification/adverse selection problems be avoided? 

Can clearly stated policy provisions be developed and accurate premium rates established? 

These are not insurable perils, but the last two can be addressed by changes in procedures 

and pricing mechanisms. 

68. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the likelihood 

that problems affecting participation can be adequately addressed by product or policy 

modifications. 

1

This program could be made attractive to many producers resulting in increased

participation, especially at buy-up levels. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A59

Exhibit 5 

Northwestern States 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A60

Program Evaluation Diagnostic Questions – Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program 

Region Northwestern States 

Typical Crops Nursery plants in various sizes, including annuals, biennials, herbaceous 

perennials, and woody species of a wide range of types. 

Market fresh , processed , other marketed as container, bare root, and 

balled and burlap plants. 

Background Information 

Production Processes 

Annuals 

1. Are the crops planted multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the annual nursery plants are planted multiple times, depending on markets and 

varieties. 

2. For a single planting, are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? 

If yes, explain: Yes , No 

Most single plantings are planted for a specific harvest date. Some producers harvest the 

annual nursery plants from a single planting multiple times, depending on markets and 

varieties. 

3. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as double crop, fallow, irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, 

etc.). Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including 

potential issues with practices and types. 

Each operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for species, practice, 

and size. In general, liners and container plants are maintained in close proximity to one 

another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is influenced 

by markets more than management practices. 

Biennials 

4. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? Yes , No 

Most are harvested just once during the spring. Some also have a fall harvest period. 

5. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A61

As with the annuals, each biennial operation is unique. The producers have developed niche 

markets for species, practice, and size. In general, containerized plants are maintained in 

close proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Biennials are not 

generally field-grown. 

Perennials 

6. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the perennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times (especially containerized 

production); others are harvested just once a year (especially perennials harvested bare root 

from field grown production), still others are treated like annual plants and are planted and 

harvested in the same year. 

7. Are the crops alternate bearing? Yes , No 

This question is not relevant for the Nursery Crop Insurance Program. The insured crop is 

the plant itself, not the fruit. 

8. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 

Each perennial operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for 

species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close proximity to 

one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is 

influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are proprietary and the 

soil is sold with the production. Plants are often potted up if they are not sold. Eventually as 

container plants become too large for the market, they are destroyed. 

Field grown plants are grown in single or double rows, with or without irrigation. Growth is 

supported by frequent fertilization, and pest management including herbicide weed control. 

Turnover in many cases is influenced as much by markets as by management practices. 

Individual plants are harvested from the rows. For balled and burlap plants, the root ball and 

associated soil is dug, wrapped, and tied off. Eventually if plants can not be sold they 

become too large for the market and are destroyed. 

9. What is the economic life of the capital stock (trees, vines, etc.)? 

The crop itself is the capital stock. It may be maintained for 2 to 5 years, although some 

operations maintain even older plants, that practice is unusual in the Northwest. 

10. Over its economic life, what is the likelihood that ten percent or more of the capital stock 

would be lost due to natural causes? Describe: 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A62

Approximately 1% (probability of loss)

The capital stock is the crop. The losses of capital stock may not involve loss of entire 

plants, but only portions of the plants to extreme weather. The effect of such partial losses in 

the short run is similar to the effect of losing whole plants, recovery is sometimes possible, 

depending on the nature of the damage. 

11. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

starts producing saleable output? 

Depends on the variety and market.

12. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

is at peak production? 

Depends on the variety and market.

Nursery 

13. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for nursery crops 

in this region. Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand 

including potential issues with practices and types. 

Nurseries in the region grow plants primarily from seed, cuttings, and purchased liner plants 

(bare root or in containers). Markets determine the types and varieties planted and the 

practices to establish the new crop. Most producers have a particular market niche and work 

to maximize their share within the market and to minimize their costs. 

Marketing 

14. Describe typical marketing channels and/or contracting structures for these crops. 

The marketing channels for nursery production vary by operation and variety being sold. 

Many producers in the region produce limited types and varieties, often but not always 

maintained under one practice. Depending on the market, production may be sold to a single 

buyer or multiple buyers. Some production is under contract. Some is speculative. 

15. In this region are there critical time periods (i.e., marketing windows) when producers hope 

to market these crops? If so, describe. 

Yes. The windows for sales of most of these nursery crops are very small. 

16. Within the marketing channels and/or contracting structures mentioned above describe how 

quality variations are handled (e.g., off-grade apples in a fresh market system may be 

processed for juice). 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A63

Generally off grade production in not saleable. Rehabilitation of off-grade plants results in 

the production of plants which are often out of compliance with the terms of sales 

agreements. 

In this region, do federal supply control marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

In this region, do state quality marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

RMA–Facilitated Insurance Products 

17. In this region, what RMA-facilitated insurance products are currently available for these 

crops? List all: 

The Nursery Crop Insurance policy and the AGR policies are the RMA-facilitated insurance 

product currently available for these crops. However, AGR and/or AGR-Lite are not 

available in all the south-central states. Furthermore these products are not generally 

considered to be well-suited to nursery crop production. 

The questions in this section (20 through 26) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. There is 

no yield of nursery production. Consequently, this section has been left blank. 

Yield Risk 

18. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative yield risk? Relative risk is 

used to adjust absolute magnitudes that vary across crops to a relative level to facilitate 

comparability (roughly, a measure of variation divided by the mean level). 

19. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative yield risk? 

20. Are these crops exposed to catastrophic risks that would reduce yields by 50 percent or 

more? Yes , No 

21. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic losses to occur? 

Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

22. Characterize yield risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic yield risk(s) described 

earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the low relative yield risk crops identified earlier were 

one, and the high relative yield risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A64

you assign to the non-catastrophic yield risk associated with these crops in this region? 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

23. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of good yields or bad 

yields for these crops? If yes, describe what causes these multiple-year sequences. 

Yes , No . 

24. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low yield risk and five is very high yield risk, 

provide an overall assessment of yield risk faced by producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

The questions in this section (27 through 32) are only marginally relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. 

The nursery production has no quality in the sense a harvested crop has quality. 

Consequently, the questions in this section have been answered to reflect the effects on the 

“quality” of the inventory rather than any effects on quality of a harvestable product. 

Quality Risk 

25. In this region what are examples of crops with very low quality risk? 

N/A 

26. In this region what are examples of crops with very high quality risk? 

N/A 

27. Are the crops exposed to catastrophic quality risks that would reduce the average price 

received [marketability] by 20 percent or more? Yes , No 

28. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic quality losses to occur? 

 Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

Excessive Precipitation 0 to 2

But generally affecting just a small portion of the crop in the region. 

29. We now want to characterize quality risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic quality 

risk(s) described earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the crops with very low risk of 

quality problems identified earlier were one, and the crops with very high risk of quality 

problems identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the quality risk 

associated with these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low quality risk and 5 is very 

high quality risk. 

This question is not relevant to nursery crop insurance. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A65

30. On a scale from one to five, if one is very low quality [marketability] risk and five is very 

high risk, provide an overall assessment of quality risk faced by producers of these crops in 

this region. Where 1 is very low quality survival risk and 5 is very high quality survival risk. 

1

The questions in this section (33 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. 

Price Risk 

31. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

32. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A 

33. On a scale from one to five, if the low price risk crops identified earlier were one and the 

high price risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the 

relative price risk (within the production cycle) faced by producers of these crops in this 

region? Where 1 is low price risk crop and 5 is high price risk crop. 

N/A 

34. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of high prices or low 

prices for these crops? Yes , No . If yes, describe. 

N/A 

35. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low price risk and five is very high price risk 

[of loss of value], provide an overall assessment of price risk (within the production cycle) 

faced by producers of these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low price risk and 5 is very 

high price risk. 

N/A

The questions in this section (36 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. Consequently, this section has been left 

blank. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A66

Other Sources of Revenue Risk 

36. For this region, describe other factors that affect revenue risk for these crops (e.g., prevented 

planting). 

37. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low risk and five is very high risk, provide an 

overall assessment of risk sources other than yield, quality, and price risks faced by 

producers of these crops in this region. Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

Sufficient Non-Insurance Coping Mechanisms 

38. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the extent to 

which producers of these crops in this region use risk-reducing inputs as a substitute for crop 

insurance. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high.

3 to 4 

39. Are government crop programs (e.g., marketing loans and counter-cyclical payments) 

available for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: 

Only some of the questions in this section (40 through 53) are relevant to the FFT (Pilot) 

Insurance Program. The relevant questions have been answered. 

40. In this region, is there a history of federal disaster payments for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: Disaster payments have been .made available for unseasonable freezes. 

41. Approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is under production 

contract with a first handler or processor? 

50 to 75%. 

Describe contracts: Based on limited testimony, approximately half of the total production of 

these crops is under production contract with a first handler 

a. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

production risk (i.e., the grower must deliver on the contract even if production shortfalls 

occur)? Yes , No 

b. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

quality risk (i.e., there are significant price penalties if the product does not meet the 

quality characteristics specified in the contract). Yes , No 

Delivery may be refused based on quality. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A67

c. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

price risk (i.e., prices for specific quality characteristics are not specified in the contract)? 

Yes , No 

Production is either accepted or rejected. 

42. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is priced 

prior to harvest (may or may not be tied to a production contract)? 

Describe: 100%. Harvest doesn’t occur until a price agreement has been reached. 

43. When corn farmers in the Midwest experience low (high) yields, they can often expect higher 

(lower) market prices (i.e., prices and yields are very negatively correlated). This moderates 

the revenue impacts of low yields. In contrast, for corn farmers in the Southeast there is very 

little relationship between their yields and market prices (i.e., prices and yields are 

independent). In this region the price and yield for these crops are: Independent, Somewhat 

Negatively Correlated, or Highly Negatively Correlated? 

Independent 

Describe: Prices are influenced by markets, relationships between the buyer and seller, 

varietal differences, quality judgments by the buyer, etc. more than by supply. 

44. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree” and five is “strongly agree,” 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

are financially able to self-insure against production losses.” Where 1 is strongly agree and 5 

is strongly disagree. 

Between 3 and 4, depending on the producer. 

Describe: In this region, producers are a highly variable group, both in their financial 

sophistication and in their fiscal resources. The least wealthy and wealthiest producers are 

less risk-averse and prepared to deal with the consequences of a significant loss. In the case 

of the least wealthy producers, alternative revenue sources were the most commonly 

identified strategy; the wealthier producers often self-insure as financial decision. 

45. For a typical grower of these crops, approximately what percentage of the total farm revenue 

would be attributable to these crops? 

50 - 100 %, although the concept of typical is misleading in this industry. Each operation is 

unique.

46. What other commodities would typically* be produced on a farm that produces these 

commodities? What is the correlation between revenue from these other commodities and 

the revenue from these commodities? For correlation use a scale of one to five, where 1 is 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A68

“strongly negatively correlated,” 2 is “negatively correlated,“ 3 “independent,“ 4 is 

“positively correlated,“ and 5 is “strongly positively correlated.” 

*Typically is an inappropriate concept for production of nursery crops in this region by this 

cohort of producers. 

N/A 

47. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is 

produced by part-time farmers who have full-time employment off the farm? 

Based on testimony, approximately 25 to 35%. 

48. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree“ and five is “strongly agree,“ 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

attempt to manage production risk by spreading their production over several geographic 

locations.” 

2

Describe: Few producers are geographically diversified within the region. The smaller 

producers are less likely to have any geographic diversity. 

49. In this region, what private-sector insurance products (if any) are currently available for these 

crops? 

List all: It is possible to insure some of the perennial crop stock against fire through private 

contract, although such insurance is neither a standard product nor generally marketed. 

Private freeze insurance is available as is private named peril insurance for 

trees(http://www.liveassetinsurance.com/index.htm). 

50. Characterize how agricultural lenders in this region view the available RMA-facilitated 

insurance products for these crops (using Unfavorable, Indifferent, or Favorable). 

“Unfavorable” implies that lenders actually discourage borrowers from purchasing the 

product while “favorable” implies that lenders strongly encourage and often require 

borrowers to purchase the product. If multiple insurance products are offered, answer for 

each product. 

Describe: The insurance is viewed favorably by lenders. 

The importance of agriculture in the region and the success of agricultural operations have 

had a substantial effect on the general attitude of lenders. 

51. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the 

sufficiency of non-insurance coping mechanisms for producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is highly sufficient and 5 is highly insufficient. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A69

2 to 3 

Risk Classification 

52. On a scale from one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree, provide 

your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, no producers of these crops are 

really any more or less risky than any others. They all face about the same risk of loss.” 

Where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree 

2

Describe: Producers with a greater range of types and of varieties within types have less risk 

of substantial losses. Maintenance practices can influence the ability of the nursery crops to 

tolerate perils. 

53. In this region, for those who are currently not insured, would you say that premium rate on 

the existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about 

right,” or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for 

each product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

54. In this region, for those who currently are insured, would you say that premium rate on the 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about right,” 

or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for each 

product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

55. For this region, to what extent does the system used to establish the guarantee (e.g., APH 

yield or expected revenue) for this crop match the true value of the production at risk? An 

answer of one indicates that the system used to establish the guarantee does a very poor job 

of matching the true value of the production at risk. An answer of five indicates that the 

system used to establish the guarantee does a very good job of matching the true value of the 

production at risk. 

Producers report the value of their production is often underestimated by the inventory 

system. 

56. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the 

effectiveness of existing RMA-facilitated insurance products in accurately classifying 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A70

potential policyholders according to their loss exposure (i.e., higher risk growers pay higher 

premiums while lower risk growers pay lower premiums). Where 1 is very low and 5 is very 

high. 

3 to 4, the producers have different levels of sophistication in their operations. The 

premiums do not reflect these differences, but the differences are less extreme than in the 

Northeast and southeastern regions. 

Moral Hazard and Monitoring 

57. Yield variation [Inventory loss] can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable 

“acts of management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated crop insurance product for 

these crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is 

low and five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product 

4. 

58. To the extent that management affects yield loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to monitor 

the insured’s behavior? 

Difficult

Explain: Since the indemnities are triggered by weather events, the losses that are purely tied 

to management practices are generally obvious. However, a weak nursery plant is less likely 

to survive a weather peril. Consequently, these multifactorial losses are more difficult to 

adjust. 

59. Quality variation can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable “acts of 

management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated insurance product for these 

crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is low and 

five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are offered, 

answer for each product. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high 

N/A. Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to a yieldbased crop insurance. 

60. To the extent that management affects quality loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to 

monitor the insured’s behavior? 

N/A Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to yield-based 

crop insurance. 

61. On a scale from one to five, where one is very large and five is very small, assess the extent 

of moral hazard problems with existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A71

1 to 2 

Problems Affecting Insurance Participation 

62. Have significant problems occurred (either past or current) with policy provisions on [the] 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for the crop? If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product. Yes , No 

63. If the answer to the previous question is no, go to next question. If yes, for each significant 

problem: 

a. Briefly describe the problem. 

This is an extremely complex insurance product. 

b. What has been the impact of the problem (e.g., high loss ratios, reduced demand, 

etc.)? 

The complexity has led some insureds to believe they had coverage they did not have. 

Together with the complexity, this has reduced demand. 

c. Have policy provisions since been changed to adequately address the problem? 

While the provisions have been changed several times, the issues have not been 

resolved to the satisfaction of producers. 

d. If policy provisions have not been changed, what changes in policy provisions do you 

think would increase insurance demand for this crop? 

Everyone who expressed an opinion, with the exception of one agent, would like to 

see the policy simplified. 

64. In this region, do reinsured companies have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new 

or existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

The administrative costs of the insurance are very high. The premiums are modest. The 

reinsured companies in many cases would be happy not to write a nursery policy. 

65. In this region, do agents have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new or existing 

RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

66. List any perils that concern growers of these crops but are not covered by existing RMAfacilitated insurance products (e.g., business interruption due to unavailability of irrigation 

water, disease quarantines, etc.). For each peril assess the extent of growers’ concerns about 

this peril on a scale from one to five where one is minor concern and five is major concern. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A72

None identified in this region. 

67.Briefly describe the potential for insuring these currently uninsured perils? In answering this, 

consider the following questions: 

Can hidden action/moral hazard and classification/adverse selection problems be avoided? 

Can clearly stated policy provisions be developed and accurate premium rates established? 

N/A. 

68. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the likelihood 

that problems affecting participation can be adequately addressed by product or policy 

modifications. 

1

This program could be made attractive to many producers resulting in increased

participation, especially at buy-up levels. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A73

Exhibit 6 

Southwestern States 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A74

Program Evaluation Diagnostic Questions – Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program 

Region Southwestern States 

Typical Crops Nursery plants in various sizes, including annuals, biennials, herbaceous 

perennials, and woody species of a wide range of types. 

Market fresh , processed , other marketed primarily as containerized 

plants, with some balled and burlap plants. 

Background Information 

Production Processes 

Annuals 

1. Are the crops planted multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Most are planted to address orders. Some of the annual nursery plants are planted multiple 

times; others are planted just once a year. 

2. For a single planting, are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? 

If yes, explain: Yes , No 

Most are harvested to fulfill orders. Depending on those orders, some of the annual nursery 

plants are harvested multiple times; others are harvested just once a year. 

3. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as double crop, fallow, irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, 

etc.). Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including 

potential issues with practices and types. 

Each operation is unique. The producers have developed niche markets for species, practice, 

and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close proximity to one another with 

irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover is influenced by markets 

more than management practices. Soil mixes are proprietary and the soil is sold with the 

production. 

Biennials 

4. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? Yes , No 

Biennial nursery plants are generally harvested in the spring of the second year; though 

producers of liners manage the biennials as though they were annuals. 

5. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A75

As with the annuals, each biennial operation is unique. The producers have developed niche 

markets for species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in close 

proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. 

Perennials 

6. Are the crops harvested multiple times during a crop production year? If yes, explain: 

Yes , No 

Some of the perennial nursery plants are harvested multiple times; others are harvested just 

once a year, still others are treated like annual plants (either (a) grown for a year and then 

marketed or (b) purchased as liners or container plants and repotted and grown for a year. 

7. Are the crops alternate bearing? Yes , No 

This question is not relevant for the Nursery Crop Insurance Program. The insured crop is 

the plant itself, not the fruit. 

8. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for these crops 

(e.g., practices such as irrigation, regional differences in climate or soils, etc.). Discuss, 

particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand including potential issues 

with practices and types. 

As with the annuals, each perennial operation is unique. The producers have developed 

niche markets for species, practice, and size. In general, container plants are maintained in 

close proximity to one another with irrigation, frequent fertilization, and pest management. 

Turnover is influenced by markets more than management practices. Soil mixes are 

proprietary and the soil is sold with the production. Plants are generally potted up if they are 

not sold. Eventually, if a plant becomes too large for the market it is destroyed. 

Field grown plants are less common in this production region. When they are grown, they 

are grown in single or double rows, generally with irrigation. Growth is supported by 

frequent fertilization, and pest management. Turnover in many cases is influenced as much 

by markets as by management practices. Palms are harvested as bare root or balled and 

burlapped plants. Because there is less tendency for the perennials in this region to enter 

dormancy, there are few other plants that can be handled as bare root harvests. Eventually if 

plants can not be sold they become too large for the market and are destroyed. 

9. What is the economic life of the capital stock (trees, vines, etc.)? 

Varies by species and practice.

10. Over its economic life, what is the likelihood that ten percent or more of the capital stock 

would be lost due to natural causes? Describe: 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A76

<1% (probability of loss).

The capital stock is the crop. The losses of capital stock may not involve loss of entire 

plants, but instead loss of portions of the plants to extreme weather. The effect of such 

partial losses in the short run is similar to the effect of losing whole plants, recovery is 

sometimes possible, depending on the nature of the damage. 

11. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

starts producing saleable output? 

Varies with the species. Generally more than a year.

12. If capital stock is lost, how long will it take to reestablish the capital stock to a point where it 

is at peak production? 

Varies with the species. Generally several years.

Nursery 

13. Describe distinguishing characteristics of prevailing production system(s) for nursery crops 

in this region. Discuss, particularly, features that are critical in assessing potential demand 

including potential issues with practices and types. 

Nurseries in the region grow plants from seed, from cuttings, and from meristem cloning. 

Nurseries also buy plants produced by these three processes. Some of the nursery stock used 

by nurseries is locally produced; some comes from remote tropical locations. Markets 

determine the type and practice, however most producers have garnered a particular market 

niche and work to maximize their share within the niche. 

Marketing 

14. Describe typical marketing channels and/or contracting structures for these crops. 

The marketing channels for nursery production vary by operation, and by variety. Many 

producers in the region produce limited types maintained under one practice. Depending on 

the market, production may be sold to a single buyer or multiple buyers. Much of the 

production is initiated under contract. 

15. In this region are there critical time periods (i.e., marketing windows) when producers hope 

to market these crops? If so, describe. 

Yes. But the windows for sales from the Southwest are wider, especially for foliage and 

flower plants in containers. 

16. Within the marketing channels and/or contracting structures mentioned above describe how 

quality variations are handled (e.g., off-grade apples in a fresh market system may be 

processed for juice). 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A77

Generally off grade production in not saleable. The costs of rehabilitation relative to the 

value of the crop generally preclude such actions. 

In this region, do federal supply control marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

In this region, do state quality marketing orders exist for production of these crops? 

Yes , No 

Describe: 

RMA–Facilitated Insurance Products 

17. In this region, what RMA-facilitated insurance products are currently available for these 

crops? List all: 

The Nursery Crop Insurance policy and the AGR policies (where available) are the RMAfacilitated insurance product currently available for these crops. 

The questions in this section (20 through 26) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. There is 

no yield of nursery production. Consequently, this section has been left blank. 

Yield Risk 

18. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative yield risk? Relative risk is 

used to adjust absolute magnitudes that vary across crops to a relative level to facilitate 

comparability (roughly, a measure of variation divided by the mean level). 

19. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative yield risk? 

20. Are these crops exposed to catastrophic risks that would reduce yields by 50 percent or 

more? Yes , No 

21. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic losses to occur? 

Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25

22. Characterize yield risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic yield risk(s) described 

earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the low relative yield risk crops identified earlier were 

one, and the high relative yield risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would 

you assign to the non-catastrophic yield risk associated with these crops in this region? 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A78

23. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of good yields or bad 

yields for these crops? If yes, describe what causes these multiple-year sequences. 

Yes , No . 

24. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low yield risk and five is very high yield risk, 

provide an overall assessment of yield risk faced by producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

The questions in this section (27 through 32) are only marginally relevant to the Nursery Crop 

Insurance Program. The insurance is an inventory-based program not a yield-based program. 

The nursery production has no quality in the sense a harvested crop has quality. 

Consequently, the questions in this section have been answered to reflect the effects on the 

“quality” of the inventory rather than any effects on quality of a harvestable product. 

Quality Risk 

25. In this region what are examples of crops with very low quality risk? 

N/A. 

26. In this region what are examples of crops with very high quality risk? 

N/A. 

27. Are the crops exposed to catastrophic quality risks that would reduce the average price 

received [marketability] by 20 percent or more? Yes , No 

28. If the answer to the previous question is yes, describe these risks. If no, proceed to the next 

question. Over 25 years (or crop cycles) approximately how often would you expect such 

catastrophic quality losses to occur? 

 Description Years (or crop cycles) out of 25 

Wildfire 0 to 1 

Excess Precipitation 0 to 2 

But generally affecting a small portion of the crop in the region. 

29. We now want to characterize quality risk for these crops ignoring the catastrophic quality 

risk(s) described earlier. On a scale from one to five, if the crops with very low risk of 

quality problems identified earlier were one, and the crops with very high risk of quality 

problems identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the quality risk 

associated with these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low quality risk and 5 is very 

high quality risk. 

This question is not relevant to nursery crop insurance. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A79

30. On a scale from one to five, if one is very low quality [marketability] risk and five is very 

high risk, provide an overall assessment of quality risk faced by producers of these crops in 

this region. Where 1 is very low quality survival risk and 5 is very high quality survival risk. 

1

The questions in this section (33 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. 

Price Risk 

31. In this region what are examples of crops with very low relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A. 

32. In this region what are examples of crops with very high relative price risk within the 

production cycle? That is, variation in price between pre-plant for annuals (or equivalent for 

perennials) and sale. (Similar concept to IP and RA for crops with futures markets). 

N/A. 

33. On a scale from one to five, if the low price risk crops identified earlier were one and the 

high price risk crops identified earlier were five, what number would you assign to the 

relative price risk (within the production cycle) faced by producers of these crops in this 

region? Where 1 is low price risk crop and 5 is high price risk crop. 

N/A. 

34. In this region, do producers tend to experience multiple-year sequences of high prices or low 

prices for these crops? Yes , No . If yes, describe. 

N/A. 

35. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low price risk and five is very high price risk 

[of loss of value], provide an overall assessment of price risk (within the production cycle) 

faced by producers of these crops in this region? Where 1 is very low price risk and 5 is very 

high price risk. 

N/A. 

The questions in this section (36 through 37) are not relevant to the Nursery Crop Insurance 

Program. The insured crop under the program is the nursery inventory. The inventory values 

are established at the onset of the insurance period. Consequently, this section has been left 

blank. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A80

Other Sources of Revenue Risk 

36. For this region, describe other factors that affect revenue risk for these crops (e.g., prevented 

planting). 

37. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low risk and five is very high risk, provide an 

overall assessment of risk sources other than yield, quality, and price risks faced by 

producers of these crops in this region. Where 1 is very low risk and 5 is very high risk. 

Sufficient Non-Insurance Coping Mechanisms 

38. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the extent to 

which producers of these crops in this region use risk-reducing inputs as a substitute for crop 

insurance. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high.

4

39. Are government crop programs (e.g., marketing loans and counter-cyclical payments) 

available for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: 

Only some of the questions in this section (40 through 53) are relevant to the FFT (Pilot) 

Insurance Program. The relevant questions have been answered. 

40. In this region, is there a history of federal disaster payments for these crops? Yes , No 

Describe: No information about such payments was discovered. 

41. Approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is under production 

contract with a first handler or processor? 

Describe contracts: No information about this topic was discovered. 

a. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

production risk (i.e., the grower must deliver on the contract even if production shortfalls 

occur)? Yes , No 

b. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

quality risk (i.e., there are significant price penalties if the product does not meet the 

quality characteristics specified in the contract). Yes , No 

Delivery may be refused based on quality. 

c. Under the terms of a typical production contract for these crops, is the grower exposed to 

price risk (i.e., prices for specific quality characteristics are not specified in the contract)? 

Yes , No 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A81

42. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is priced 

prior to harvest (may or may not be tied to a production contract)? 

Describe: 100%. Harvest doesn’t occur until a price agreement has been reached. 

43. When corn farmers in the Midwest experience low (high) yields, they can often expect higher 

(lower) market prices (i.e., prices and yields are very negatively correlated). This moderates 

the revenue impacts of low yields. In contrast, for corn farmers in the Southeast there is very 

little relationship between their yields and market prices (i.e., prices and yields are 

independent). In this region the price and yield for these crops are: Independent, Somewhat 

Negatively Correlated, or Highly Negatively Correlated? 

Independent 

Describe: Prices are influenced by markets, relationships between the buyer and seller, 

varietal differences, quality judgments by the buyer, etc. more than by supply. 

44. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree” and five is “strongly agree,” 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

are financially able to self-insure against production losses.” 

No information about this topic was discovered. 

Describe: No information about this topic was discovered. However, the Contractor would 

expect producers to be a highly variable group, both in their financial sophistication and in 

their fiscal resources. 

45. For a typical grower of these crops, approximately what percentage of the total farm revenue 

would be attributable to these crops? 

No information about this topic was discovered. 

46. What other commodities would typically* be produced on a farm that produces these 

commodities? What is the correlation between revenue from these other commodities and 

the revenue from these commodities? For correlation use a scale of one to five, where 1 is 

“strongly negatively correlated,” 2 is “negatively correlated,“ 3 “independent,“ 4 is 

“positively correlated,“ and 5 is “strongly positively correlated.” 

*Typically is an inappropriate concept for production of nursery crops in this region by this 

cohort of producers. 

N/A 

47. In this region, approximately what percentage of the total production of these crops is 

produced by part-time farmers who have full-time employment off the farm? 

No information about this topic was discovered. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A82

48. On a scale from one to five, where one is “strongly disagree“ and five is “strongly agree,“ 

provide your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, producers of these crops 

attempt to manage production risk by spreading their production over several geographic 

locations.” 

No information about this topic was discovered. 

Describe: Some producers are geographically diversified within the region. This pattern is 

less characteristic of the smallest producers. This pattern is truer for producers whose 

primary income is from nursery crops and the very largest producers. 

49. In this region, what private-sector insurance products (if any) are currently available for these 

crops? 

List all: It is possible to insure some of the perennial crop stock against fire through private 

contract, although such insurance is neither a standard product nor generally marketed. 

Private freeze insurance is available in the region. 

Private named peril insurance for trees is available 

(http://www.liveassetinsurance.com/index.htm). 

50. Characterize how agricultural lenders in this region view the available RMA-facilitated 

insurance products for these crops (using Unfavorable, Indifferent, or Favorable). 

“Unfavorable” implies that lenders actually discourage borrowers from purchasing the 

product while “favorable” implies that lenders strongly encourage and often require 

borrowers to purchase the product. If multiple insurance products are offered, answer for 

each product. 

Describe: No information about this topic was discovered. 

The importance of agriculture in the region, and the success of agricultural enterprises would 

lead the Contractor to believe lenders would look favorably on crop insurance. 

51. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the 

sufficiency of non-insurance coping mechanisms for producers of these crops in this region. 

Where 1 is highly sufficient and 5 is highly insufficient. 

Producers in the area seem less concerned about insuring agricultural risk than those in many 

regions. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A83

Risk Classification 

52. On a scale from one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree, provide 

your reaction to the following statement: “In this region, no producers of these crops are 

really any more or less risky than any others. They all face about the same risk of loss.” 

1

Describe: Weather in the region is not particularly variable. Some producers have greater 

variety of types and of varieties within types, increasing their potential for losses resulting 

from weather perils, but decreasing the effects of these losses on the financial condition of 

the operation. Wildfires seem to be the only variable risk. 

53. In this region, for those who are currently not insured, would you say that premium rate on 

the existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about 

right,” or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for 

each product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

54. In this region, for those who currently are insured, would you say that premium rate on the 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop are “much too low,” “about right,” 

or “much too high”? If more than one RMA insurance product is offered, answer for each 

product. 

About right. 

If you answered that premium rates are “much too high,” explain why (or how) you think this 

happened. 

55. For this region, to what extent does the system used to establish the guarantee (e.g., APH 

yield or expected revenue) for this crop match the true value of the production at risk? An 

answer of one indicates that the system used to establish the guarantee does a very poor job 

of matching the true value of the production at risk. An answer of five indicates that the 

system used to establish the guarantee does a very good job of matching the true value of the 

production at risk. 

No information about this topic was discovered. 

56. On a scale from one to five, where one is very low and five is very high, assess the 

effectiveness of existing RMA-facilitated insurance products in accurately classifying 

potential policyholders according to their loss exposure (i.e., higher risk growers pay higher 

premiums while lower risk growers pay lower premiums). Where 1 is very low and 5 is very 

high. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A84

Because of the low variability of risks, accurately classifying potential policyholders 

according to their loss exposure is not an issue. 

Moral Hazard and Monitoring 

57. Yield variation [Inventory loss] can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable 

“acts of management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated crop insurance product for 

these crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is 

low and five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are 

offered, answer for each product, 4. 

58. To the extent that management affects yield loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to monitor 

the insured’s behavior? 

Not too Difficult. 

Explain: Since the indemnities are triggered by specific events, the losses that are purely tied 

to management practices are generally obvious. 

59. Quality variation can be caused by unavoidable “acts of nature” or avoidable “acts of 

management.” In practical parlance, what is the potential for “gaming” the insurance 

product? Evaluate the potential for gaming the RMA-facilitated insurance product for these 

crops on a scale from one to five, where one implies that the potential for gaming is low and 

five implies that the potential for gaming is high. If multiple insurance products are offered, 

answer for each product. Where 1 is very low and 5 is very high 

N/A. Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to a yieldbased crop insurance. 

60. To the extent that management affects quality loss risk exposure, how difficult is it to 

monitor the insured’s behavior? 

N/A 

Quality standards do not apply to nursery inventory in the sense they do to yield-based crop 

insurance. 

61. On a scale from one to five, where one is very large and five is very small, assess the extent 

of moral hazard problems with existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for this crop. 

1

Problems Affecting Insurance Participation 

62. Have significant problems occurred (either past or current) with policy provisions on [the] 

existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for the crop? If multiple insurance products are 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A85

offered, answer for each product. Yes , No 

63. If the answer to the previous question is no, go to next question. If yes, for each significant 

problem: 

No information on this topic was discovered. 

a. Briefly describe the problem. 

N/A. 

b. What has been the impact of the problem (e.g., high loss ratios, reduced demand, 

etc.)? 

N/A. 

c. Have policy provisions since been changed to adequately address the problem? 

N/A. 

d. If policy provisions have not been changed, what changes in policy provisions do you 

think would increase insurance demand for this crop? 

Everyone who expressed an opinion, would like to see the policy simplified. 

64. In this region, do reinsured companies have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new 

or existing RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

The administrative costs of the insurance are very high. The premiums are modest. The 

reinsured companies in many cases would be happy not to write a nursery policy. 

65. In this region, do agents have sufficient incentives to aggressively market new or existing 

RMA-facilitated insurance products for these crops? Yes , No 

If yes, go to next question. If no, explain. 

Selling nursery insurance in California is extremely difficult. Most producers do not want to 

buy the insurance. 

66. List any perils that concern growers of these crops but are not covered by existing RMAfacilitated insurance products (e.g., business interruption due to unavailability of irrigation 

water, disease quarantines, etc.). For each peril assess the extent of growers’ concerns about 

this peril on a scale from one to five where one is minor concern and five is major concern. 

Labor shortage: 5 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A86

67.Briefly describe the potential for insuring these currently uninsured perils? In answering this, 

consider the following questions: 

Can hidden action/moral hazard and classification/adverse selection problems be avoided? 

Can clearly stated policy provisions be developed and accurate premium rates established? 

This is not an insurable peril. 

68. On a scale from one to five, where one is very high and five is very low, assess the likelihood 

that problems affecting participation can be adequately addressed by product or policy 

modifications. 

4

It will be difficult to make this program attractive to producers in this region. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Appendix B 

Stakeholder Input 

Exhibit 1. General Listening Session Agenda 

Exhibit 2. Stakeholder Comments 

Exhibit 3. Sources of Producer Input (by County) 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B1

Exhibit 1. General Listening Session Agenda 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B2

Nursery Crop Insurance Program 

Listening Session 

Agenda 

• Introductions 

 Watts and Associates, Inc. 

 USDA Risk Management Agency 

 Attendees 

• Purpose 

 Gather impressions of the program 

 Learn about possible improvements 

 W&A to make recommendation to USDA about the program 

• Background 

 FCIC Insurance Evaluation Contracts 

 Brief History of Nursery Crop Insurance 

• Feedback 

 Use of Insurance 

 Experiences with Insurance 

 Surprises 

 Potential Improvements 

 Effects of Changes 

Questions
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B3

Exhibit 2. Stakeholder Comments (sorted by theme) 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B4

Stakeholder Listening Session Comments 

Stakeholder listening session comments are cataloged here to address the requirements of the 

Program Evaluation Handbook (FCIC-22010 (09-2005) (the Handbook). Section 3.B.(10) of the 

Handbook addresses the requirement to document listening session input and lists themes for a 

catalog of listening session “observations.” Observations the Contractor deduced from the input 

documented in this appendix are incorporated into the main body of the report. This appendix is 

incorporated to organize the specific stakeholder comments categorically according to the 

themes listed in Section 3.B.(10) of the Handbook. Some comments made by stakeholders 

address more than one topic in the Handbook list. To assure all the relevant comments are 

provided for each of the listed topics, the Contractor has repeated each comment under all the 

topics for which it is relevant. Comments made by producers are identified by the notation (p). 

Comments made by insurance industry stakeholders are identified by the notation (i). Comments 

made by stakeholders who represent producer associations are identified by the notation (a). If 

the affiliation of a stakeholder could not be identified, the comment is annotated with a (u). 

Do producers have knowledge of the program? (Here the Contractor has included comments 

showing stakeholders had knowledge of details of the program)

It’s so onerous in trying to estimate what your crop [is going to be] (p)

A lot of people in this room sell every single day and plant every single week that is a huge 

problem because you are asking you to estimate and I can’t estimate. And God forbid 

there is a claim and they come back and they want to see exactly what it was at such and 

such a date and they want to see all the plantings subsequent. So it makes it extremely to 

adhere to the letter of the insurance policy and it makes really no sense. (p)

It makes it almost impossible to stay on top of it with spending, you know, spending 10 

percent or 15 percent of your time trying to manage your insurance policy, which is 

asinine. (p)

Growers have a heck of a time trying to figure out I don’t want to underinsure or overinsure. 

(p)

Simplify make it easy. (p)

I think the problem with this 10 percent rule is what happened is the policy has created an 

enormous fear among growers. (u)

Went from a 6 dollar plant and potted it into the next pot size and now it is a 25 dollar plant 

and that also skews are values up and we initially may have been in that 10 percent 

tolerance but now all the sudden because we potted in the next larger pot size we blown 

out of that 10 percent. (p)

There needs to be more than 2 bumps a year that isn’t sufficient (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B5

I am paying money and I am exposed to something I can’t even control because of a 

wording. (p) 

[People] are looking to work the program within a way that their nurseries actually work (i)

Push this thing a little later would take some of the pressure off of us. (p)

I was asked to provide a list of everybody I purchased plants from and everybody I sold them 

to. I really don’t think this is any of the governments business. (p)

Have to deal with that dreaded DataScape program once or twice a year. (i)

If they have plants of the same pot size but in different forms because they are played with it 

such an important part of the insurance when you have a claim, they will put those 

different prices in there which may be under the allowable price and they are going to pay 

a premium for each of those but when the claim occurs they are going to pay the lowest 

possible price. So the government is allowing them to pay a higher premium when in 

fact they know they aren’t going to pay that out. (u)

We have heard a lot about the 30 day waiting period because it is a big problem. (p)

At one point it was give us a value that you want to insure (p)

The nursery crop insurance tool is the primary risk management tool for the growers in 

Florida. The crop insurance policy is needed for all those risk management reasons as 

well as needed to provide for the expectations for those financial institutions that require 

crop insurance. (a)

At times the government treats the nursery inventory as a crop. (a)

Always use the report price on the price list at the time of inventory. (a)

30 days later that grower is already potentially out of compliance on the very first day. (a)

The current policy does not allow any mechanism to adjust reported inventory downward in 

value. (a)

The plant inventory reporting software DataScape does not have a method to report multis as 

a different value than singles. (a)

In some zones, overhead irrigation is required. Overhead irrigation for large containerized 

trees is impractical because of the size. It is also impractical to lay them down in 

anticipation of a storm. (a)

Allow inventory revisions throughout the year. (a)

Omitted plants, it is very challenging to add them mid year. (a)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B6

From the beginning it is obvious they [the government] have tried to pigeonhole the nursery 

crop insurance program into what it requires for row crops. (i)

Why does every single thing on the nursery need to be insured? (i)

The diversification of the nursery industry is so dynamic that it’s completely impossible...to 

go through this policy. (p)

There is no other insurance that I know of that you can go from 60 to 75 percent and your 

premiums triple. (p)

The guy that spends more money he doesn’t get a break on his insurance but the guy who just 

sits there and nickels and dimes it and just throws stuff on the ground and all the sudden 

it turns around and gets a flood he gets a claim [regarding flooding]. (p)

People are just getting crop insurance as CAT coverage just to make sure they are entitled to 

SURE payments. (i)

Is there a better way to communicate with DataScape? (i)

[CAT coverage] is only designed to qualify for disaster payments. (p)

For the better growers is it would be real simple is maybe give 3 to10 percent discount in the 

first year with no claims, 10 percent second additional and additional 10 percent third 

year. 

Omitted plants have an inventory value and pay a premium but don’t get any coverage. (i)

It would make sense for different reporting dates. (i)

Our policy should be put in on the end of October. (p)

They were saying every tree had a value whether it be for firewood or for mulch. (p)

It seems like they got some stipulations in the policy that relies to row insurance instead of 

the nursery. (p)

If you got a three year rotation and a one point I you can lose a whole year’s crop and not get 

paid a penny because I don’t have a 51 percent loss. (p)

If we cut that peach tree off until it gets to 12 inches we have no coverage. (p)

This is sort of a one size fits all policy. (p)

We can’t insure separate farms unless they are in separate counties. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B7

Why can’t you buy a separate policy for a farm that is 57 miles away? (p)

Unfortunately nurseries are treated like a mono-crop like wheat, corn where there would have 

to be a complete loss and that’s just not realistic. (a)

It takes hours to input that inventory into DataScape. Then you turn around and then his 

inventory has totally changed. (i)

Eliminate the DataScape. (i)

It’s too complicated and really the protection is not there. (i)

It [DataScape] is just more pressure than I can’t stand. (i)

Could we not have Special Provisions for unit structure on a state or county basis in the 

nursery policy? (i)

I think my problem...you are asking us to project what our crop is going to be for the next 

season with a 10 percent tolerance. How am I supposed to know exactly what my 

inventory is going to be? (p)

If we miss it by 30 days it creates problems. (p)

There is no insurance available for that at all [referring to once the product has left the field]. 

(p)

It is like you are almost done inventory twice [regarding DataScape]. (p)

Why did producers elected or not elect use the program? 

It’s so onerous in trying to estimate what your crop [is going to be] (p)

I think the problem with this 10 percent rule is what happened is the policy has created an 

enormous fear among growers. (u)

There needs to be more than 2 bumps a year that isn’t sufficient (p)

At one point I am at 60 days exposed to uninsured anywhere from 3 to 6 million 

dollars...how can that work? (p)

I am paying money and I am exposed to something I can’t even control because of a 

wording. (p) 

How do I know what the age of plant, nobody knows? (p)

I was asked to provide a list of everybody I purchased plants from and everybody I sold them 

to. I really don’t think this is any of the governments business. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B8

They are so frustrated they just give up [insurance]. (i)

Have to deal with that dreaded DataScape program once or twice a year. (i)

The nursery crop insurance tool is the primary risk management tool for the growers in 

Florida. (a)

In some zones, overhead irrigation is required. Overhead irrigation for large containerized 

trees is impractical because of the size. It is also impractical to lay them down in 

anticipation of a storm. (a)

I would have to think the word “simplify” is a very elegant word (a)

From the beginning it is obvious they [the government] have tried to pigeonhole the nursery 

crop insurance program into what it requires for row crops. (i)

There is no other insurance that I know of that you can go from 60 to 75 percent and your 

premiums triple. (p)

They don’t have faith in this no more (p)

This is sort of a one size fits all policy. (p)

Unfortunately nurseries are treated like a mono-crop like wheat, corn where there would have 

to be a complete loss and that’s just not realistic. (a)

It’s too complicated and really the protection is not there. (i)

It [DataScape] is just more pressure than I can’t stand. (i)

I think my problem...you are asking us to project what our crop is going to be for the next 

season with a 10 percent tolerance. How am I supposed to know exactly what my 

inventory is going to be? (p)

I think part of the problem is education. (p)

It is like you are almost doing inventory twice [regarding DataScape]. (p)

Did the program meet the growers’ risk management needs? 

A lot of people in this room sell every single day and plant every single week that is a huge 

problem because you are asking you to estimate and I can’t estimate. And God forbid 

there is a claim and they come back and they want to see exactly what it was at such and 

such a date and they want to see all the plantings subsequent. So it makes it extremely to 

adhere to the letter of the insurance policy and it makes really no sense. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B9

It makes it almost impossible to stay on top of it with spending, you know, spending 10 

percent or 15 percent of your time trying to manage your insurance policy, which is 

asinine. (p)

I think the problem with this 10 percent rule is what happened is the policy has created an 

enormous fear among growers. (u)

This isn’t a 1000 acres of wheat (p)

Went from a 6 dollar plant and potted it into the next pot size and now it is a 25 dollar plant 

and that also skews are values up and we initially may have been in that 10 percent 

tolerance but now all the sudden because we potted in the next larger pot size we blown 

out of that 10 percent. (p)

There needs to be more than 2 bumps a year that isn’t sufficient (p)

At one point I am at 60 days exposed to uninsured anywhere from 3 to 6 million 

dollars...how can that work? (p)

I am paying money and I am exposed to something I can’t even control because of a 

wording. (p) 

Push this thing a little later would take some of the pressure off of us. (p)

How do I know what the age of plant, nobody knows? (p)

I was asked to provide a list of everybody I purchased plants from and everybody I sold them 

to. I really don’t think this is any of the governments business. (p)

They are so frustrated they just give up [insurance]. (i)

Have to deal with that dreaded DataScape program once or twice a year. (i)

If they have plants of the same pot size but in different forms because they are played with it 

such an important part of the insurance when you have a claim, they will put those 

different prices in there which may be under the allowable price and they are going to pay 

a premium for each of those but when the claim occurs they are going to pay the lowest 

possible price. So the government is allowing that to pay a higher premium when in fact 

they know they aren’t to go pay that out. (u) 

This is deterring a nursery to think about expanding. (p)

We have heard a lot about the 30 day waiting period because it is a big problem. (p)

The nursery crop insurance tool is the primary risk management tool for the growers in 

Florida. The crop insurance policy is needed for all those risk management reasons as 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B10

well as needed to provide for the expectations for those financial institutions that require 

crop insurance. (a)

At times the government treats the nursery inventory as a crop. (a)

The current policy does not allow any mechanism to adjust reported inventory downward in 

value. (a)

The plant inventory reporting software DataScape does not have a method to report multis as 

a different value than singles. (a)

In some zones, overhead irrigation is required. Overhead irrigation for large containerized 

trees is impractical because of the size. It is also impractical to lay them down in 

anticipation of a storm. (a)

Allow inventory revisions throughout the year. (a)

Omitted plants, it is very challenging to add them mid year. (a)

I would have to think the word “simplify” is a very elegant word (a)

From the beginning it is obvious they [the government] have tried to pigeonhole the nursery 

crop insurance program into what it requires for row crops. (i)

Why does every single thing on the nursery need to be insured? (i)

The diversification of the nursery industry is so dynamic that it’s completely impossible...to 

go through this policy. (p)

People are just getting crop insurance as CAT coverage just to make sure they are entitled to 

SURE payments. (i)

Is there a better way to communicate with DataScape? (i)

It [CAT coverage] is only designed to qualify for disaster payments. (p)

Omitted plants have an inventory value and pay a premium but don’t get any coverage. (i)

If we had something like the AGR program it might actually work. (i)

It would make sense for different reporting dates. (i)

Our policy should be put in on the end of October. (p)

They were saying every tree had a value whether it be for firewood or for mulch. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B11

It seems like they got some stipulations in the policy that relies to row insurance instead of 

the nursery. (p)

If you got a three year rotation and a one point I you can lose a whole year’s crop and not get 

paid a penny because I don’t have a 51 percent loss. (p)

Separating this thing out by individual varieties and by individual year classes for it to be 

worth anything really to me. (p)

This is sort of a one size fits all policy. (p)

We can’t insure separate farms unless they are in separate counties. (p)

Why can’t you buy a separate policy for a farm that is 57 miles away? (p)

They don’t care if we plant a million dollars of seed in the ground, and we don’t get 

coverage, why? (p)

Unfortunately nurseries are treated like a mono-crop like wheat, corn where there would have 

to be a complete loss and that’s just not realistic. (a)

It takes hours to input that inventory into DataScape. Then you turn around and then his 

inventory has totally changed. (i)

It’s too complicated and really the protection is not there. (i)

If we could get unit structure [change to an age production unit structure]. (i)

It [DataScape] is just more pressure than I can’t stand. (i)

Could we not have Special Provisions for unit structure on a state or county basis in the 

nursery policy? (i)

We also work with some groups with controlled varieties...is there a way to get these trees 

covered? (p)

We would like to see is the opportunity to buy specific insurance for a specific peril. (p)

There is no insurance available for that at all [referring to once the product has left the field]. 

(p)

I think part of the problem is education. (p)

How did the program affect the growers? 

It’s so onerous in trying to estimate what your crop [is going to be] (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B12

At one point I am at 60 days exposed to uninsured anywhere from 3 to 6 million 

dollars...how can that work? (p)

I am paying money and I am exposed to something I can’t even control because of a 

wording. (p) 

How do I know what the age of plant, nobody knows? (p)

I was asked to provide a list of everybody I purchased plants from and everybody I sold them 

to. I really don’t think this is any of the governments business. (p)

They are so frustrated they just give up [insurance]. (i)

Have to deal with that dreaded DataScape program once or twice a year. (i)

This is deterring a nursery to think about expanding. (p)

Bottom line is the growers want a policy that makes business sense for their business 

operation. (a)

I would have to think the word “simplify” is a very elegant word (a)

They don’t have faith in this no more (p)

They don’t care if we plant a million dollars of seed in the ground, and we don’t get 

coverage, why? (p)

I had a team of adjusters there and I had two college professors there on the farm, [... but ] 

the adjusters wouldn’t listen to the men with the degrees. (p)

It’s too complicated and really the protection is not there. (i)

I think my problem...you are asking us to project what our crop is going to be for the next 

season with a 10 percent tolerance. How am I supposed to know exactly what my 

inventory is going to be? (p)

What effect did the program have on the market? 

The Contractor did not identify comments that addressed Nursery Program impacts on 

nursery markets, except perhaps, “This is deterring a nursery to think about expanding.” 

(p)

Impact of program requirements on existing marketing, buyer purchasing methods and 

claim settlement practices (The intention of this aggregate language is not clear. Consequently 

the Contractor has collected comments that address both marketing and purchasing of insurance 

as well as claims settlement practices.)

It’s so onerous in trying to estimate what your crop [is going to be] (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B13

A lot of people in this room sell every single day and plant every single week that is a huge 

problem because you are asking you to estimate and I can’t estimate. And God forbid 

there is a claim and they come back and they want to see exactly what it was at such and 

such a date and they want to see all the plantings subsequent. So it makes it extremely to 

adhere to the letter of the insurance policy and it makes really no sense. (p)

It makes it almost impossible to stay on top of it with spending, you know, spending 10 

percent or 15 percent of your time trying to manage your insurance policy, which is 

asinine. (p)

Growers have a heck of a time trying to figure out I don’t want to underinsure or to 

overinsure. (p)

I think the problem with this 10 percent rule is what happened is the policy has created an 

enormous fear among growers. (u)

Went from a 6 dollar plant and potted it into the next pot size and now it is a 25 dollar plant 

and that also skews are values up and we initially may have been in that 10 percent 

tolerance but now all the sudden because we potted in the next larger pot size we blown 

out of that 10 percent. (p)

There needs to be more than 2 bumps a year that isn’t sufficient (p)

At one point I am at 60 days exposed to uninsured anywhere from 3 to 6 million 

dollars...how can that work? (p)

I am paying money and I am exposed to something I can’t even control because of a 

wording. (p) 

[People] are looking to work the program within a way that their nurseries actually work (i)

Push this thing a little later would take some of the pressure off of us. (p)

How do I know what the age of plant, nobody knows? (p)

I was asked to provide a list of everybody I purchased plants from and everybody I sold them 

to. I really don’t think this is any of the governments business. (p)

They are so frustrated they just give up [insurance]. (i)

Have to deal with that dreaded DataScape program once or twice a year. (i)

This is deterring a nursery to think about expanding. (p)

We have heard a lot about the 30 day waiting period because it is a big problem. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B14

The current policy does not allow any mechanism to adjust reported inventory downward in 

value. (a)

The plant inventory reporting software DataScape does not have a method to report multis as 

a different value than singles. (a)

Omitted plants, it is very challenging to add them mid year. (a)

I would have to think the word “simplify” is a very elegant word (a)

Why does every single thing on the nursery need to be insured? (i)

The diversification of the nursery industry is so dynamic that it’s completely impossible...to 

go through this policy. (p)

There is no other insurance that I know of that you can go from 60 to 75 percent and your 

premiums triple. (p)

In January we had a slight freeze...mine didn’t show up damaged until June. (p)

They were saying every tree had a value whether it be for firewood or for mulch. (p)

If you got a cicada problem I guarantee you aren’t going to see those damages within 72 

hours. (p)

When you get someone [an adjuster] out there they don’t have enough experience. (p)

If you got a three year rotation and a one point I you can lose a whole year’s crop and not get 

paid a penny because I don’t have a 51 percent loss. (p)

If we cut that peach tree off until it gets to 12 inches we have no coverage. (p)

I had a team of adjusters there and I had two college professors there on the farm, and I 

wanted to get them a bottle of water between rounds, because the adjusters wouldn’t 

listen to the men with the degrees. (p)

Unfortunately nurseries are treated like a mono-crop like wheat, corn where there would have 

to be a complete loss and that’s just not realistic. (a)

We know [weather damage] within 4 months (p)

I don’t know an adjuster out there that has a nursery background. (i)

Get more horticulturists involved in the nursery industry. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B15

I think my problem...you are asking us to project what our crop is going to be for the next 

season with a 10 percent tolerance. How am I supposed to know exactly what my 

inventory is going to be? (p)

If we miss it by 30 days it creates problems. (p)

I have had a lot of nurseries change because of the drought. (i)

We would like to see is the opportunity to buy specific insurance for a specific peril. (p)

Treat it like property type insurance with a co-insurance...rather than voiding the 

policy...you will have a penalty. (p) 

There is no insurance available for that at all [referring to once the product has left the field]. 

(p)

Looking at one of those individual groups have a policy based on a particular characteristic 

of each one of those individual groups. (p)

I think part of the problem is education. (p)

It is like you are almost done inventory twice [regarding DataScape]. (p)

For roses we can have a loss in March...then in June or July when the adjuster shows up the 

roses look great. (p)

Understanding of the policy terms or conditions 

An understanding of the policy terms and conditions is implicit in most of the comments 

recorded above. There were no comments that explicitly addressed understanding policy 

terms and conditions, although several addressed the logic of these terms and conditions. 

Understanding of the loss notification requirements and indemnity calculations 

There were no comments that explicitly addressed understanding the loss notification 

requirements and indemnity calculations, except perhaps, “If you got a cicada problem I 

guarantee you aren’t going to see those damages within 72 hours.” (p)

Understanding of the underwriting guidelines 

It’s so onerous in trying to estimate what your crop [is going to be] (p)

A lot of people in this room sell every single day and plant every single week that is a huge 

problem because you are asking you to estimate and I can’t estimate. And God forbid 

there is a claim and they come back and they want to see exactly what it was at such and 

such a date and they want to see all the plantings subsequent. So it makes it extremely to 

adhere to the letter of the insurance policy and it makes really no sense. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B16

It makes it almost impossible to stay on top of it with spending, you know, spending 10 

percent or 15 percent of your time trying to manage your insurance policy, which is 

asinine. (p)

Growers have a heck of a time trying to figure out I don’t want to underinsure or to 

overinsure. (p)

I think the problem with this 10 percent rule is what happened is the policy has created an 

enormous fear among growers. (u)

Went from a 6 dollar plant and potted it into the next pot size and now it is a 25 dollar plant 

and that also skews are values up and we initially may have been in that 10 percent 

tolerance but now all the sudden because we potted in the next larger pot size we blown 

out of that 10 percent. (p)

There needs to be more than 2 bumps a year that isn’t sufficient (p)

At one point I am at 60 days exposed to uninsured anywhere from 3 to 6 million 

dollars...how can that work? (p)

I am paying money and I am exposed to something I can’t even control because of a 

wording. (p) 

[People] are looking to work the program within a way that their nurseries actually work (i)

How do I know what the age of plant, nobody knows? (p)

I was asked to provide a list of everybody I purchased plants from and everybody I sold them 

to. I really don’t think this is any of the governments business. (p)

We have heard a lot about the 30 day waiting period because it is a big problem. (p)

Whatever tweaks or changes that evolve...that there be no period which the growers would 

go naked without any coverage. (a)

Bottom line is the growers want a policy that makes business sense for their business 

operation. (a)

The current policy does not allow any mechanism to adjust reported inventory downward in 

value. (a)

The plant inventory reporting software DataScape does not have a method to report multis as 

a different value than singles. (a)

Omitted plants, it is very challenging to add them mid year. (a)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B17

Why does every single thing on the nursery need to be insured? (i)

The diversification of the nursery industry is so dynamic that it’s completely impossible...to 

go through this policy. (p)

They were saying every tree had a value whether it be for firewood or for mulch. (p)

When you get someone out there they don’t have enough experience. (p)

If we cut that peach tree off until it gets to 12 inches we have no coverage. (p)

Unfortunately nurseries are treated like a mono-crop like wheat, corn where there would have 

to be a complete loss and that’s just not realistic. (a)

We know [weather damage] within 4 months (p)

I think my problem...you are asking us to project what our crop is going to be for the next 

season with a 10 percent tolerance. How am I supposed to know exactly what my 

inventory is going to be? (p)

If we miss it by 30 days it creates problems. (p)

Treat it like property type insurance with a co-insurance...rather than voiding the 

policy...you will have a penalty. (p)

There is no insurance available for that at all [referring to once the product has left the field]. 

(p)

Understanding of the actuarial documents 

The Contractor did not identify comments that specifically addressed Nursery Program 

actuarial documents, except perhaps, “Could we not have Special Provisions for unit 

structure on a state or county basis in the nursery policy?” (i) and “There is no other 

insurance that I know of that you can go from 60 to 75 percent and your premiums 

triple.” (p)

Understanding of rate calculations 

The Contractor did not identify comments that addressed Nursery Program rate calculations, 

except perhaps, “There is no other insurance that I know of that you can go from 60 to 75 

percent and your premiums triple.” (p)

Understanding of the calculations to determine the amounts of insurance 

The Contractor did not identify comments that specifically addressed Nursery Program 

calculations to determine the amount of insurance. However, there were numerous 

comments already documented above that addressed inventory, inventory valuation, and 

inventory software. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B18

Understanding of data reporting requirements for Appendix III 

The Contractor did not identify comments that specifically addressed Appendix III. 

Understanding of the implications of Waste, Fraud, or Abuse of the program 

One of the suggestions has been made is get rid of the CAT and do away with that and 

actually put a premium on. (i) 

End the democracy of that program, buy them out [the cheaters], pay them off, do something 

to open it up for the rest of us. (i)

As far as fraud in a concern, why not increase inspections on the initiation new policy. (u)

The guy that spends more money he doesn’t get a break on his insurance but the guy who just 

sits there and nickels and dimes it and just throws stuff on the ground and all the sudden 

it turns around and gets a flood he gets a claim [regarding flooding]. (p)

It [CAT coverage] is only designed to qualify for disaster payments. (p)

Understanding of the Insurance Providers responsibilities 

The Contractor did not identify comments that specifically addressed Insurance Providers 

responsibilities under the Nursery Program. However, there were numerous comments 

already documented above that addressed loss adjustment and underwriting managed by 

the Insurance Providers. 

Understanding of forms completions and timelines of reporting information 

A lot of people in this room sell every single day and plant every single week that is a huge 

problem because you are asking you to estimate and I can’t estimate. And God forbid 

there is a claim and they come back and they want to see exactly what it was at such and 

such a date and they want to see all the plantings subsequent. So it makes it extremely to 

adhere to the letter of the insurance policy and it makes really no sense. (p)

There needs to be more than 2 bumps a year that isn’t sufficient (p)

Push this thing a little later would take some of the pressure off of us. (p)

We have heard a lot about the 30 day waiting period because it is a big problem. (p)

30 days later that grower is already potentially out of compliance on the very first day. (a)

Allow inventory revisions throughout the year. (a)

Omitted plants, it is very challenging to add them mid year. (a)

Our policy should be put in on the end of October. (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B19

If you got a cicada problem I guarantee you aren’t going to see those damages within 72 

hours. (p)

Our inventory changes every minute and we’re planting and doing production every day. 

And so when it’s become a plant that is viable and worthy of sale versus a plant that’s in 

the yard that’s put its time in and so when we looked at it I mean it was absolutely 

impossible. (p)

We know [weather damage] within 4 months (p)

Like September 1st or September 30th someplace in there [regarding SCD]. (i)

If we miss it by 30 days it creates problems. (p)

For roses we can have a loss in March...then in June or July when the adjuster shows up the 

roses look great. (p)

Any other issues identified that do not fall into the previous categories 

The themes of the comments are well documented in the lists above, with the possible 

exception of the need for insurance for grafted production. The complexity of the 

insurance had an impact on the content of the discussions. Individual producer 

experiences had an impact on the tone. 

Need for Insurance for Grafted Production 

From the beginning it is obvious they [the government] have tried to pigeonhole the nursery 

crop insurance program into what it requires for row crops. (i)

If it a livable tree it needs to be covered whether it is one inch it has some value. (p)

If we cut that peach tree off until it gets to 12 inches we have no coverage. (p)

I don’t care if we plant a million dollars of seed in the ground, and we don’t get coverage, 

why? (p)

There has been no protection for the sleeping eye trees. (i)

We also work with some groups with controlled varieties...is there a way to get these trees 

covered? (p)
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B20

Exhibit 3. Sources of Producer Input (by State) 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B21

Sources of Producer Input (by State) 

Insurance is available under the Nursery Program in all states. Input was obtained from 

stakeholders whose principal place of business is in the states shaded dark green. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B22

Sources of Producer Input (by State) 

Insurance is available under the Nursery Program in all states. Input was obtained from 

stakeholders whose business was conducted in the states shaded light green. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report.

Appendix C 

Detailed Data Tables for the Rating Review 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C1

Data for Figure 1. Annual Loss Ratio

Crop 

Year

Loss Ratio 

(All Nursery)

Loss Ratio 

(Container)

Loss Ratio 

(Field Grown)

1999 0.206 0.193 0.239

2000 1.071 1.011 1.182

2001 0.891 1.176 0.289

2002 0.170 0.233 0.032

2003 0.437 0.507 0.282

2004 1.304 1.003 1.914

2005 1.995 2.532 0.951

2006 5.799 5.795 5.808

2007 0.486 0.178 1.262

2008 0.065 0.062 0.072

2009 0.532 0.144 1.380

2010 0.661 0.204 1.865

2011 0.078 0.046 0.173

Data for Figure 2. Annual Liability

Crop Year Liability 

(All Nursery)

Liability 

(Container)

Liability 

(Field Grown)

1999 2,367,529 1,136,033 1,231,497

2000 2,356,727 1,358,965 997,761

2001 2,599,386 1,552,917 1,046,469

2002 3,006,447 1,805,923 1,200,524

2003 3,282,964 1,995,805 1,287,159

2004 3,597,695 2,110,588 1,487,107

2005 3,888,377 2,255,018 1,633,359

2006 3,673,547 2,143,224 1,530,322

2007 4,010,257 2,440,198 1,570,059

2008 4,036,440 2,429,946 1,606,494

2009 3,192,935 2,010,105 1,182,829

2010 2,791,903 1,778,674 1,013,229

2011 2,310,164 1,537,237 772,927
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C2

Data for Figure 3. Annual Earned Premium Rate

Crop Year

Earned 

Premium Rate 

(All Nursery)

Earned 

Premium 

Rate 

(Container)

Earned 

Premium Rate 

(Field Grown)

1999 0.013 0.019 0.007

2000 0.019 0.021 0.015

2001 0.018 0.021 0.014

2002 0.018 0.021 0.014

2003 0.018 0.021 0.015

2004 0.018 0.020 0.014

2005 0.018 0.020 0.014

2006 0.012 0.013 0.010

2007 0.022 0.026 0.016

2008 0.022 0.026 0.017

2009 0.020 0.022 0.017

2010 0.021 0.024 0.016

2011 0.022 0.024 0.016

Data for Figure 4. Frequency of Indemnity Payments

Crop Year Frequency 

(All Nursery)

Frequency 

(Container)

Frequency 

(Field Grown)

1999 0.016 0.015 0.016

2000 0.056 0.061 0.027

2001 0.067 0.072 0.032

2002 0.024 0.025 0.013

2003 0.040 0.039 0.027

2004 0.102 0.092 0.093

2005 0.104 0.121 0.054

2006 0.146 0.151 0.122

2007 0.058 0.031 0.083

2008 0.021 0.020 0.014

2009 0.046 0.034 0.055

2010 0.071 0.062 0.067

2011 0.027 0.028 0.018
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C3

Data for Figure 5. Average Severity of Indemnity Payments

Crop Year Severity 

(All Nursery)

Severity 

(Container)

Severity 

(Field Grown)

1999 143.514 119.601 165.423

2000 250.537 176.013 506.523

2001 176.775 181.257 95.025

2002 97.609 109.409 25.331

2003 162.345 166.738 110.320

2004 193.742 141.853 227.647

2005 294.985 277.725 194.651

2006 422.607 357.779 377.166

2007 174.802 114.424 200.143

2008 70.337 64.507 78.704

2009 250.611 87.808 365.900

2010 210.255 74.277 372.923

2011 65.507 39.454 127.553

Data for Figure 6. Annual Loss Ratio at Additional Coverage Levels

Crop 

Year

Loss Ratio 

(All Nursery)

Loss Ratio 

(Container)

Loss Ratio 

(Field Grown)

1999 0.632 0.604 0.889

2000 2.648 2.470 2.997

2001 2.313 2.804 0.660

2002 0.461 0.557 0.114

2003 0.863 0.946 0.579

2004 2.455 1.583 5.562

2005 4.677 5.349 2.641

2006 10.834 9.912 13.106

2007 0.316 0.255 0.531

2008 0.087 0.084 0.094

2009 0.662 0.266 1.631

2010 1.257 0.344 4.087

2011 0.082 0.066 0.144
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C4

Data for Figure 7. Annual Liability at Additional Coverage Levels

Crop 

Year

Liability 

(All Nursery)

Liability 

(Container)

Liability 

(Field Grown)

1999 252,911 195,321 57,590

2000 407,747 270,330 137,416

2001 474,564 362,263 112,300

2002 562,759 412,172 150,587

2003 692,310 516,760 175,549

2004 794,210 578,803 215,407

2005 985,955 682,768 303,187

2006 966,718 656,180 310,537

2007 1,279,071 906,835 372,235

2008 1,309,408 855,629 453,778

2009 837,947 510,706 327,240

2010 743,552 471,836 271,716

2011 618,629 416,793 201,836

Data for Figure 8. Annual Earned Premium Rate at Additional Coverage Levels

Crop Year

Earned Premium 

Rate 

(All Nursery)

Earned Premium 

Rate 

(Container)

Earned Premium Rate 

(Field Grown)

1999 0.029 0.034 0.013

2000 0.043 0.043 0.043

2001 0.035 0.036 0.034

2002 0.035 0.038 0.028

2003 0.033 0.034 0.029

2004 0.030 0.032 0.024

2005 0.028 0.031 0.023

2006 0.020 0.021 0.018

2007 0.041 0.045 0.031

2008 0.040 0.045 0.031

2009 0.039 0.046 0.029

2010 0.040 0.047 0.026

2011 0.040 0.048 0.025
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C5

Data for Figure 9. Annual Indemnity Frequency at Additional Coverage Levels

Crop Year Frequency 

(All Nursery)

Frequency 

(Container)

Frequency 

(Field Grown)

1999 0.061 0.055 0.096

2000 0.275 0.271 0.179

2001 0.242 0.250 0.131

2002 0.086 0.089 0.049

2003 0.111 0.120 0.056

2004 0.210 0.191 0.225

2005 0.308 0.349 0.154

2006 0.376 0.385 0.323

2007 0.090 0.067 0.098

2008 0.045 0.045 0.027

2009 0.115 0.087 0.133

2010 0.187 0.166 0.180

2011 0.069 0.074 0.042

Data for Figure 10. Annual Indemnity Average Severity at Additional Coverage Levels

Crop Year Severity 

(All Nursery)

Severity 

(Container)

Severity 

(Field Grown)

1999 171.259 181.000 91.571

2000 261.712 184.897 519.529

2001 197.730 203.494 76.758

2002 104.483 111.766 30.250

2003 164.325 156.533 134.955

2004 237.219 160.364 287.980

2005 325.160 300.590 220.108

2006 420.116 329.770 431.653

2007 108.149 116.178 86.097

2008 64.606 60.574 69.211

2009 171.937 89.696 230.955

2010 213.405 70.037 380.312

2011 37.889 32.650 49.333
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C6

Data for Figure 11. Annual Earned Premium Rate at Additional Coverage Levels Restated to 2012 Premium Rate 

Levels

Crop Year Earned Premium Rate 

(All Nursery) Earned Premium Rate (Container) Earned Premium Rate (Field Grown)

1999 0.030 0.036 0.009

2000 0.031 0.036 0.020

2001 0.030 0.033 0.020

2002 0.030 0.035 0.018

2003 0.029 0.032 0.019

2004 0.026 0.030 0.016

2005 0.024 0.029 0.014

2006 0.015 0.017 0.011

2007 0.029 0.033 0.018

2008 0.028 0.032 0.019

2009 0.027 0.032 0.018

2010 0.028 0.033 0.018

2011 0.028 0.033 0.017

Data for Figure 12. Annual Loss Ratio Comparison for all Practices Restated to 2012 Premium Rates – Nursery

Crop Year Loss Ratio 

(Adjusted Premium Rates)

Loss Ratio 

(Historical)

1999 0.567 0.632

2000 2.839 2.648

2001 2.643 2.313

2002 0.511 0.461

2003 0.998 0.863

2004 2.846 2.455

2005 5.490 4.677

2006 14.611 10.834

2007 0.431 0.316

2008 0.128 0.087

2009 1.032 0.662

2010 2.023 1.257

2011 0.130 0.082
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C7

Data for Figure 13. Annual Comparison Actual Loss Ratio to Loss Ratio with Premium Rate Re-stated to 2012 

Level – Field Grown

Crop Year Loss Ratio 

(Adjusted Premium Rates)

Loss Ratio 

(Historical)

1999 1.575 0.889

2000 4.286 2.997

2001 1.036 0.660

2002 0.186 0.114

2003 0.944 0.579

2004 9.209 5.562

2005 4.211 2.641

2006 21.824 13.106

2007 0.906 0.531

2008 0.165 0.094

2009 2.851 1.631

2010 6.942 4.087

2011 0.240 0.144

Data for Figure 14. Annual Comparison Actual Loss Ratio to Loss Ratio with Premium Rate Re-stated to 2012 

Level - Container

Crop Year Loss Ratio 

(Adjusted Premium Rates)

Loss Ratio 

(Historical)

1999 0.514 0.604

2000 2.349 2.470

2001 2.965 2.804

2002 0.567 0.557

2003 1.008 0.946

2004 1.693 1.583

2005 5.776 5.349

2006 12.410 9.912

2007 0.329 0.255

2008 0.117 0.084

2009 0.398 0.266

2010 0.544 0.344

2011 0.103 0.066
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C8

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Alabama Autauga 23

Alabama Baldwin 41

Alabama Bullock 15

Alabama Calhoun 19

Alabama Chambers 8

Alabama Cherokee 30

Alabama Chilton 4

Alabama Cleburne 3

Alabama Coffee 14

Alabama Cullman 15

Alabama Dale 4

Alabama Dallas 4

Alabama Elmore 20

Alabama Escambia 7

Alabama Etowah 8

Alabama Franklin 3

Alabama Geneva 15

Alabama Greene 2

Alabama Lauderdale 6

Alabama Lee 13

Alabama Limestone 98

Alabama Macon 16

Alabama Madison 53

Alabama Marshall 3

Alabama Mobile 276

Alabama Montgomery 21

Alabama Morgan 4

Alabama Pickens 2

Alabama Pike 2

Alabama Randolph 1

Alabama Russell 10

Alabama Saint Clair 3

Alabama Shelby 21

Alabama Talladega 2

Alabama Tuscaloosa 2

Alabama Washington 6

Arizona Maricopa 125

Arizona Mohave 3

Arizona Pima 19

Arizona Pinal 20

Arizona Yavapai 19

Arizona Yuma 5

Arkansas Arkansas 2

Arkansas Benton 4

Arkansas Clay 13

Arkansas Columbia 14
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C9

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Arkansas Crawford 7

Arkansas Faulkner 11

Arkansas Independence 9

Arkansas Little River 4

Arkansas Madison 6

Arkansas Monroe 1

Arkansas Montgomery 10

Arkansas Nevada 1

Arkansas Newton 2

Arkansas Poinsett 17

Arkansas Pulaski 9

Arkansas Van Buren 3

Arkansas White 10

California Alameda 39

California Butte 12

California Colusa 5

California Contra Costa 22

California Eldorado 7

California Fresno 89

California Glenn 6

California Humboldt 21

California Imperial 16

California Kern 152

California Kings 2

California Lassen 3

California Los Angeles 155

California Madera 36

California Mendocino 13

California Merced 41

California Monterey 94

California Napa 6

California Nevada 10

California Orange 155

California Placer 25

California Riverside 153

California Sacramento 36

California San Benito 17

California San Bernardino 71

California San Diego 388

California San Joaquin 69

California San Luis Obispo 87

California San Mateo 41

California Santa Barbara 79

California Santa Clara 37

California Santa Cruz 84

California Shasta 8
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C10

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

California Siskiyou 11

California Solano 31

California Sonoma 57

California Stanislaus 52

California Sutter 11

California Tehama 17

California Tulare 89

California Ventura 185

California Yolo 1

California Yuba 7

Colorado Adams 74

Colorado Arapahoe 18

Colorado Boulder 32

Colorado Broomfield 5

Colorado Denver 10

Colorado Douglas 44

Colorado Elbert 2

Colorado El Paso 23

Colorado Fremont 1

Colorado Garfield 2

Colorado Gunnison 1

Colorado Jefferson 31

Colorado Larimer 47

Colorado Lincoln 4

Colorado Logan 7

Colorado Mesa 5

Colorado Montezuma 1

Colorado Otero 5

Colorado Prowers 11

Colorado Pueblo 20

Colorado Routt 8

Colorado Washington 21

Colorado Weld 85

Connecticut Fairfield 18

Connecticut Hartford 70

Connecticut Litchfield 18

Connecticut Middlesex 25

Connecticut New Haven 30

Connecticut New London 13

Connecticut Tolland 12

Connecticut Windham 20

Delaware Kent 18

Delaware New Castle 9

Delaware Sussex 39

Florida Alachua 232

Florida Baker 26
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C11

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Florida Brevard 195

Florida Broward 894

Florida Calhoun 9

Florida Charlotte 55

Florida Citrus 49

Florida Clay 53

Florida Collier 239

Florida Columbia 60

Florida Dade 1134

Florida De Soto 120

Florida Dixie 4

Florida Duval 60

Florida Escambia 13

Florida Flagler 27

Florida Gadsden 111

Florida Gilchrist 45

Florida Glades 112

Florida Hamilton 18

Florida Hardee 285

Florida Hendry 117

Florida Hernando 140

Florida Highlands 309

Florida Hillsborough 830

Florida Indian River 149

Florida Jackson 31

Florida Jefferson 126

Florida Lafayette 19

Florida Lake 1229

Florida Lee 908

Florida Leon 24

Florida Levy 68

Florida Liberty 14

Florida Madison 75

Florida Manatee 539

Florida Marion 194

Florida Martin 370

Florida Miami-Dade 5373

Florida Monroe 10

Florida Okaloosa 11

Florida Okeechobee 91

Florida Orange 1892

Florida Osceola 167

Florida Palm Beach 2214

Florida Pasco 289

Florida Pinellas 43

Florida Polk 496
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C12

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Florida Putnam 75

Florida St. Johns 56

Florida St. Lucie 294

Florida Santa Rosa 51

Florida Sarasota 121

Florida Seminole 167

Florida Sumter 244

Florida Suwannee 70

Florida Taylor 10

Florida Volusia 303

Florida Wakulla 7

Florida Walton 6

Georgia Bacon 12

Georgia Baker 3

Georgia Baldwin 3

Georgia Banks 8

Georgia Bartow 13

Georgia Berrien 8

Georgia Brooks 24

Georgia Bulloch 33

Georgia Camden 2

Georgia Carroll 15

Georgia Catoosa 3

Georgia Charlton 1

Georgia Chatham 12

Georgia Cherokee 30

Georgia Clarke 33

Georgia Clay 3

Georgia Clinch 7

Georgia Cobb 8

Georgia Coffee 22

Georgia Colquitt 29

Georgia Cook 5

Georgia Coweta 10

Georgia Crawford 43

Georgia Dawson 11

Georgia Decatur 14

Georgia Dooly 8

Georgia Douglas 10

Georgia Effingham 5

Georgia Emanuel 12

Georgia Evans 40

Georgia Fannin 1

Georgia Fayette 13

Georgia Floyd 4

Georgia Forsyth 28
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C13

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Georgia Fulton 22

Georgia Gordon 7

Georgia Grady 74

Georgia Greene 13

Georgia Gwinnett 32

Georgia Hancock 1

Georgia Haralson 3

Georgia Harris 9

Georgia Hart 13

Georgia Henry 17

Georgia Houston 7

Georgia Jasper 10

Georgia Jeff Davis 2

Georgia Johnson 18

Georgia Lamar 39

Georgia Lowndes 27

Georgia Lumpkin 15

Georgia McDuffie 26

Georgia Marion 32

Georgia Meriwether 40

Georgia Mitchell 2

Georgia Monroe 3

Georgia Morgan 16

Georgia Murray 17

Georgia Newton 3

Georgia Oconee 51

Georgia Oglethorpe 19

Georgia Paulding 7

Georgia Peach 28

Georgia Pierce 2

Georgia Pike 6

Georgia Quitman 3

Georgia Rabun 8

Georgia Randolph 5

Georgia Rockdale 1

Georgia Spalding 7

Georgia Stewart 11

Georgia Tattnall 18

Georgia Thomas 3

Georgia Tift 14

Georgia Toombs 13

Georgia Towns 5

Georgia Turner 7

Georgia Union 8

Georgia Walker 1

Georgia Walton 21
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C14

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Georgia Washington 6

Georgia Wayne 16

Georgia Webster 6

Georgia Wheeler 11

Georgia Wilkes 9

Georgia Worth 3

Hawaii Hawaii 357

Hawaii Honolulu 134

Hawaii Kauai 48

Hawaii Maui & Kalwao 54

Idaho Ada 8

Idaho Bingham 4

Idaho Bonneville 5

Idaho Boundary 10

Idaho Canyon 12

Idaho Gem 13

Idaho Gooding 1

Idaho Jefferson 1

Idaho Kootenai 2

Idaho Madison 5

Idaho Minidoka 7

Idaho Teton 7

Illinois Adams 18

Illinois Boone 32

Illinois Bureau 3

Illinois Carroll 5

Illinois Champaign 15

Illinois Christian 8

Illinois Clinton 22

Illinois Cook 26

Illinois Cumberland 12

Illinois De Kalb 56

Illinois Du Page 3

Illinois Fayette 21

Illinois Grundy 18

Illinois Hamilton 2

Illinois Hancock 5

Illinois Henry 10

Illinois Iroquois 25

Illinois Jefferson 1

Illinois Jersey 2

Illinois Kane 198

Illinois Kankakee 40

Illinois Kendall 24

Illinois Lake 109

Illinois La Salle 7
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C15

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Illinois Lee 21

Illinois Logan 1

Illinois McDonough 4

Illinois McHenry 237

Illinois McLean 15

Illinois Macon 6

Illinois Madison 15

Illinois Ogle 15

Illinois Peoria 13

Illinois Perry 3

Illinois Pike 7

Illinois Putnam 9

Illinois Rock Island 13

Illinois St. Clair 13

Illinois Tazewell 8

Illinois Union 10

Illinois Vermilion 1

Illinois Whiteside 16

Illinois Will 53

Illinois Winnebago 18

Illinois Woodford 13

Indiana Allen 9

Indiana Carroll 6

Indiana Clark 11

Indiana De Kalb 6

Indiana Hamilton 14

Indiana Hancock 10

Indiana Hendricks 27

Indiana Howard 6

Indiana Jasper 4

Indiana Johnson 12

Indiana Lake 5

Indiana Montgomery 6

Indiana St. Joseph 11

Indiana Tippecanoe 2

Indiana Wayne 12

Indiana Whitley 11

Iowa Boone 5

Iowa Cerro Gordo 6

Iowa Clay 4

Iowa Davis 7

Iowa Decatur 3

Iowa Floyd 13

Iowa Fremont 23

Iowa Greene 5

Iowa Johnson 4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C16

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Iowa Mahaska 9

Iowa Marion 9

Iowa Marshall 9

Iowa Montgomery 5

Iowa Page 34

Iowa Polk 7

Iowa Pottawattamie 16

Iowa Shelby 12

Iowa Sioux 12

Iowa Warren 3

Iowa Washington 5

Iowa Winnebago 3

Iowa Woodbury 5

Kansas Butler 3

Kansas Douglas 7

Kansas Franklin 7

Kansas Geary 2

Kansas Johnson 63

Kansas Linn 9

Kansas Miami 20

Kansas Neosho 9

Kansas Reno 5

Kansas Sedgwick 8

Kansas Shawnee 6

Kansas Trego 2

Kansas Wabaunsee 2

Kentucky Boone 10

Kentucky Bourbon 10

Kentucky Calloway 39

Kentucky Carter 1

Kentucky Daviess 1

Kentucky Edmonson 2

Kentucky Fayette 2

Kentucky Franklin 2

Kentucky Graves 2

Kentucky Hardin 13

Kentucky Henderson 6

Kentucky Henry 6

Kentucky Jefferson 8

Kentucky Jessamine 1

Kentucky Lincoln 3

Kentucky McCracken 10

Kentucky Madison 9

Kentucky Nelson 9

Kentucky Nicholas 11

Kentucky Oldham 9
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C17

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Kentucky Shelby 31

Kentucky Spencer 5

Kentucky Warren 4

Kentucky Washington 12

Louisiana Acadia 9

Louisiana Bienville 2

Louisiana Bossier 10

Louisiana Caddo 7

Louisiana Calcasieu 5

Louisiana Catahoula 8

Louisiana Claiborne 8

Louisiana Concordia 4

Louisiana Franklin 8

Louisiana Iberia 23

Louisiana Iberville 5

Louisiana Jefferson 2

Louisiana Jefferson Davis 3

Louisiana Lafayette 16

Louisiana Lincoln 10

Louisiana Madison 3

Louisiana Plaquemines 21

Louisiana Rapides 296

Louisiana Richland 1

Louisiana Sabine 1

Louisiana Saint Charles 3

Louisiana Saint Landry 8

Louisiana Saint Tammany 25

Louisiana Tangipahoa 16

Louisiana Vermilion 2

Louisiana Vernon 1

Louisiana Washington 34

Louisiana Webster 2

Louisiana Winn 6

Maine Androscoggin 6

Maine Penobscot 3

Maryland Anne Arundel 14

Maryland Baltimore 58

Maryland Caroline 49

Maryland Carroll 29

Maryland Cecil 44

Maryland Dorchester 21

Maryland Frederick 31

Maryland Harford 6

Maryland Howard 20

Maryland Kent 49

Maryland Montgomery 53
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C18

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Maryland Prince George's 6

Maryland Queen Anne's 82

Maryland Somerset 5

Maryland Talbot 3

Maryland Wicomico 30

Maryland Worcester 15

Massachusetts Bristol 23

Massachusetts Franklin 3

Massachusetts Hampden 21

Massachusetts Hampshire 9

Massachusetts Middlesex 37

Massachusetts Plymouth 15

Massachusetts Worcester 8

Michigan Allegan 61

Michigan Antrim 1

Michigan Barry 1

Michigan Berrien 25

Michigan Calhoun 6

Michigan Charlevoix 2

Michigan Crawford 2

Michigan Eaton 13

Michigan Genesee 9

Michigan Huron 7

Michigan Ingham 7

Michigan Ionia 2

Michigan Jackson 15

Michigan Kalamazoo 252

Michigan Kent 22

Michigan Lapeer 4

Michigan Lenawee 7

Michigan Livingston 28

Michigan Macomb 29

Michigan Missaukee 2

Michigan Monroe 41

Michigan Montcalm 11

Michigan Newaygo 9

Michigan Oakland 31

Michigan Ottawa 76

Michigan St. Clair 4

Michigan Sanilac 8

Michigan Shiawassee 5

Michigan Tuscola 2

Michigan Van Buren 69

Michigan Washtenaw 49

Michigan Wayne 23

Minnesota Anoka 20
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C19

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Minnesota Benton 4

Minnesota Blue Earth 4

Minnesota Carlton 1

Minnesota Carver 34

Minnesota Chisago 2

Minnesota Cottonwood 27

Minnesota Dakota 82

Minnesota Douglas 1

Minnesota Hennepin 17

Minnesota Houston 4

Minnesota Hubbard 19

Minnesota Isanti 6

Minnesota Itasca 1

Minnesota Jackson 27

Minnesota Kanabec 7

Minnesota Le Sueur 5

Minnesota Lincoln 1

Minnesota Lyon 1

Minnesota Meeker 9

Minnesota Mille Lacs 2

Minnesota Pine 15

Minnesota Polk 16

Minnesota Ramsey 25

Minnesota Rice 32

Minnesota Scott 10

Minnesota Stearns 21

Minnesota Washington 103

Minnesota Wright 32

Mississippi Adams 2

Mississippi Attala 13

Mississippi Benton 9

Mississippi Copiah 11

Mississippi Covington 7

Mississippi George 100

Mississippi Harrison 12

Mississippi Hinds 10

Mississippi Jackson 17

Mississippi Lamar 6

Mississippi Madison 10

Mississippi Marshall 4

Mississippi Oktibbeha 2

Mississippi Pontotoc 8

Mississippi Stone 13

Mississippi Tippah 9

Mississippi Walthall 1

Mississippi Wayne 17
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C20

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Mississippi Winston 5

Missouri Atchison 7

Missouri Bates 4

Missouri Boone 10

Missouri Cass 23

Missouri Clay 5

Missouri Cole 3

Missouri Crawford 1

Missouri Dade 5

Missouri Franklin 3

Missouri Grundy 13

Missouri Harrison 7

Missouri Holt 8

Missouri Jackson 20

Missouri Jasper 15

Missouri Jefferson 14

Missouri Lafayette 9

Missouri Lawrence 1

Missouri Lincoln 23

Missouri Linn 6

Missouri Macon 3

Missouri Madison 1

Missouri Maries 3

Missouri Mississippi 3

Missouri Moniteau 8

Missouri Montgomery 28

Missouri New Madrid 6

Missouri Pike 19

Missouri St. Charles 19

Missouri St. Francois 10

Missouri St. Louis 67

Missouri Saline 1

Missouri Scott 7

Missouri Warren 7

Missouri Webster 1

Missouri St. Louis City 1

Montana Beaverhead 3

Montana Cascade 9

Montana Flathead 13

Montana Ravalli 23

Montana Sanders 1

Nebraska Adams 5

Nebraska Box Butte 4

Nebraska Burt 12

Nebraska Cuming 8

Nebraska Dodge 5
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C21

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Nebraska Douglas 27

Nebraska Keith 9

Nebraska Lancaster 15

Nebraska Lincoln 9

Nebraska Madison 6

Nebraska Sarpy 13

Nebraska Saunders 14

Nebraska Scotts Bluff 3

Nebraska Thayer 13

Nebraska Washington 1

Nevada Clark 2

Nevada Nye 3

New Hampshire Hillsborough 11

New Hampshire Merrimack 10

New Hampshire Rockingham 20

New Hampshire Strafford 11

New Jersey Atlantic 24

New Jersey Burlington 33

New Jersey Camden 2

New Jersey Cape May 11

New Jersey Cumberland 93

New Jersey Gloucester 10

New Jersey Hunterdon 7

New Jersey Mercer 5

New Jersey Middlesex 8

New Jersey Monmouth 21

New Jersey Morris 15

New Jersey Ocean 5

New Jersey Salem 38

New Jersey Somerset 12

New Jersey Sussex 9

New Jersey Union 13

New Jersey Warren 5

New Mexico Curry 6

New Mexico Dona Ana 5

New Mexico Lea 6

New Mexico Mora 10

New Mexico Quay 7

New York Albany 4

New York Cattaraugus 21

New York Cayuga 5

New York Chautauqua 4

New York Dutchess 5

New York Erie 43

New York Genesee 4

New York Monroe 4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C22

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

New York Oneida 9

New York Onondaga 19

New York Ontario 13

New York Otsego 9

New York Rensselaer 7

New York Schenectady 14

New York Schoharie 10

New York Schuyler 2

New York Suffolk 173

New York Tioga 10

New York Tompkins 4

New York Wayne 16

New York Westchester 2

North Carolina Alamance 21

North Carolina Alexander 8

North Carolina Anson 4

North Carolina Ashe 10

North Carolina Avery 39

North Carolina Beaufort 7

North Carolina Bladen 1

North Carolina Brunswick 52

North Carolina Buncombe 30

North Carolina Burke 190

North Carolina Cabarrus 30

North Carolina Caldwell 286

North Carolina Caswell 18

North Carolina Catawba 37

North Carolina Chatham 29

North Carolina Cherokee 13

North Carolina Chowan 17

North Carolina Cleveland 36

North Carolina Columbus 33

North Carolina Craven 8

North Carolina Cumberland 15

North Carolina Davie 5

North Carolina Duplin 28

North Carolina Edgecombe 18

North Carolina Forsyth 16

North Carolina Franklin 13

North Carolina Gaston 12

North Carolina Granville 6

North Carolina Greene 8

North Carolina Guilford 80

North Carolina Halifax 8

North Carolina Harnett 38

North Carolina Haywood 16
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C23

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

North Carolina Henderson 45

North Carolina Hyde 5

North Carolina Iredell 25

North Carolina Jackson 3

North Carolina Johnston 125

North Carolina Lee 10

North Carolina Lenoir 15

North Carolina Lincoln 9

North Carolina McDowell 54

North Carolina Macon 1

North Carolina Madison 10

North Carolina Martin 12

North Carolina Mecklenburg 39

North Carolina Mitchell 4

North Carolina Montgomery 11

North Carolina Moore 28

North Carolina Nash 58

North Carolina New Hanover 10

North Carolina Northampton 10

North Carolina Onslow 2

North Carolina Orange 7

North Carolina Pasquotank 10

North Carolina Pender 61

North Carolina Pitt 36

North Carolina Polk 16

North Carolina Randolph 44

North Carolina Richmond 4

North Carolina Robeson 13

North Carolina Rockingham 34

North Carolina Rowan 30

North Carolina Rutherford 10

North Carolina Sampson 32

North Carolina Stanly 13

North Carolina Stokes 1

North Carolina Surry 5

North Carolina Transylvania 17

North Carolina Union 46

North Carolina Vance 10

North Carolina Wake 63

North Carolina Warren 20

North Carolina Watauga 6

North Carolina Wayne 28

North Carolina Wilkes 9

North Carolina Wilson 30

North Carolina Yadkin 5

North Carolina Yancey 12
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C24

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

North Dakota Burleigh 7

North Dakota Dickey 3

North Dakota La Moure 4

North Dakota McHenry 7

North Dakota Nelson 12

North Dakota Sargent 2

North Dakota Stark 2

North Dakota Ward 10

Ohio Ashland 17

Ohio Ashtabula 17

Ohio Athens 6

Ohio Auglaize 5

Ohio Brown 5

Ohio Carroll 11

Ohio Champaign 3

Ohio Clark 34

Ohio Clermont 1

Ohio Coshocton 3

Ohio Crawford 14

Ohio Cuyahoga 3

Ohio Darke 2

Ohio Delaware 11

Ohio Erie 24

Ohio Franklin 12

Ohio Greene 3

Ohio Hardin 4

Ohio Hocking 6

Ohio Lake 103

Ohio Lorain 26

Ohio Lucas 14

Ohio Mahoning 2

Ohio Medina 24

Ohio Meigs 2

Ohio Miami 14

Ohio Montgomery 23

Ohio Muskingum 13

Ohio Paulding 2

Ohio Pickaway 18

Ohio Portage 6

Ohio Richland 3

Ohio Stark 13

Ohio Summit 2

Ohio Trumbull 4

Ohio Union 4

Ohio Warren 17

Ohio Wayne 11
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C25

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Ohio Wood 2

Oklahoma Canadian 8

Oklahoma Cherokee 63

Oklahoma Cleveland 31

Oklahoma Comanche 2

Oklahoma Garvin 16

Oklahoma Grady 8

Oklahoma Kingfisher 6

Oklahoma McClain 9

Oklahoma Mayes 2

Oklahoma Murray 9

Oklahoma Muskogee 24

Oklahoma Oklahoma 24

Oklahoma Okmulgee 2

Oklahoma Payne 1

Oklahoma Pontotoc 11

Oklahoma Rogers 21

Oklahoma Wagoner 19

Oregon Benton 8

Oregon Clackamas 376

Oregon Columbia 4

Oregon Curry 7

Oregon Deschutes 4

Oregon Douglas 20

Oregon Hood River 8

Oregon Jefferson 11

Oregon Josephine 1

Oregon Klamath 4

Oregon Lane 43

Oregon Lincoln 3

Oregon Linn 30

Oregon Marion 412

Oregon Multnomah 106

Oregon Polk 49

Oregon Umatilla 22

Oregon Washington 225

Oregon Yamhill 112

Pennsylvania Adams 19

Pennsylvania Allegheny 8

Pennsylvania Armstrong 5

Pennsylvania Berks 25

Pennsylvania Bradford 6

Pennsylvania Bucks 58

Pennsylvania Butler 16

Pennsylvania Cambria 5

Pennsylvania Carbon 4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C26

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Pennsylvania Centre 1

Pennsylvania Chester 31

Pennsylvania Clearfield 7

Pennsylvania Columbia 5

Pennsylvania Cumberland 7

Pennsylvania Erie 20

Pennsylvania Fayette 4

Pennsylvania Franklin 15

Pennsylvania Indiana 25

Pennsylvania Juniata 5

Pennsylvania Lackawanna 4

Pennsylvania Lancaster 38

Pennsylvania Lehigh 14

Pennsylvania Luzerne 1

Pennsylvania Lycoming 4

Pennsylvania Mercer 4

Pennsylvania Monroe 4

Pennsylvania Montgomery 36

Pennsylvania Montour 10

Pennsylvania Northampton 11

Pennsylvania Northumberland 7

Pennsylvania Perry 4

Pennsylvania Pike 2

Pennsylvania Schuylkill 42

Pennsylvania Snyder 2

Pennsylvania Somerset 13

Pennsylvania Tioga 1

Pennsylvania Union 1

Pennsylvania Wayne 5

Pennsylvania Westmoreland 13

Pennsylvania York 21

Rhode Island Bristol 14

Rhode Island Washington 11

South Carolina Abbeville 11

South Carolina Aiken 19

South Carolina Allendale 1

South Carolina Anderson 33

South Carolina Bamberg 19

South Carolina Barnwell 8

South Carolina Berkeley 24

South Carolina Calhoun 25

South Carolina Charleston 89

South Carolina Cherokee 15

South Carolina Chesterfield 4

South Carolina Clarendon 33

South Carolina Colleton 31
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C27

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

South Carolina Darlington 42

South Carolina Dorchester 28

South Carolina Edgefield 27

South Carolina Fairfield 18

South Carolina Florence 30

South Carolina Georgetown 77

South Carolina Greenville 16

South Carolina Greenwood 7

South Carolina Hampton 13

South Carolina Horry 48

South Carolina Jasper 24

South Carolina Kershaw 2

South Carolina Lancaster 12

South Carolina Laurens 8

South Carolina Lee 9

South Carolina Lexington 16

South Carolina Marion 4

South Carolina Marlboro 1

South Carolina Newberry 7

South Carolina Oconee 16

South Carolina Orangeburg 41

South Carolina Pickens 14

South Carolina Richland 34

South Carolina Spartanburg 40

South Carolina Sumter 22

South Carolina Williamsburg 13

South Carolina York 39

South Dakota Bennett 3

South Dakota Codington 7

South Dakota Jackson 9

South Dakota Lake 7

South Dakota Pennington 6

South Dakota Spink 4

South Dakota Yankton 3

Tennessee Bedford 2

Tennessee Blount 24

Tennessee Cannon 54

Tennessee Carter 12

Tennessee Chester 2

Tennessee Coffee 157

Tennessee Davidson 2

Tennessee De Kalb 440

Tennessee Fentress 6

Tennessee Franklin 580

Tennessee Gibson 2

Tennessee Greene 6
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C28

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Tennessee Grundy 256

Tennessee Hardin 17

Tennessee Hawkins 21

Tennessee Haywood 8

Tennessee Henderson 2

Tennessee Hickman 3

Tennessee Johnson 36

Tennessee Knox 40

Tennessee Lake 10

Tennessee Lawrence 4

Tennessee Lincoln 33

Tennessee Loudon 3

Tennessee McMinn 5

Tennessee McNairy 2

Tennessee Madison 3

Tennessee Marion 1

Tennessee Marshall 12

Tennessee Meigs 6

Tennessee Moore 1

Tennessee Overton 3

Tennessee Putnam 5

Tennessee Rhea 1

Tennessee Robertson 23

Tennessee Rutherford 5

Tennessee Sequatchie 15

Tennessee Sevier 10

Tennessee Sullivan 9

Tennessee Sumner 19

Tennessee Van Buren 32

Tennessee Warren 1455

Tennessee Weakley 3

Tennessee White 11

Tennessee Williamson 15

Texas Anderson 18

Texas Atascosa 7

Texas Austin 28

Texas Bailey 1

Texas Bastrop 7

Texas Bexar 71

Texas Blanco 2

Texas Borden 1

Texas Bosque 11

Texas Bowie 18

Texas Brazoria 109

Texas Brazos 13

Texas Brown 19
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C29

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Texas Burleson 6

Texas Burnet 10

Texas Caldwell 13

Texas Callahan 5

Texas Cameron 153

Texas Cass 20

Texas Cherokee 130

Texas Collin 63

Texas Colorado 43

Texas Comal 1

Texas Comanche 5

Texas Dallam 17

Texas Dallas 48

Texas Dawson 1

Texas Delta 4

Texas Denton 44

Texas Dimmit 1

Texas Eastland 8

Texas Ector 1

Texas Ellis 23

Texas Erath 36

Texas Falls 11

Texas Fannin 42

Texas Fayette 3

Texas Fort Bend 82

Texas Franklin 5

Texas Frio 25

Texas Galveston 10

Texas Gillespie 4

Texas Gonzales 18

Texas Grayson 20

Texas Grimes 40

Texas Guadalupe 34

Texas Hamilton 1

Texas Harris 161

Texas Hartley 9

Texas Hays 10

Texas Henderson 32

Texas Hidalgo 77

Texas Hopkins 1

Texas Houston 4

Texas Hunt 19

Texas Jack 2

Texas Jackson 6

Texas Jasper 6

Texas Jeff Davis 4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C30

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Texas Jim Wells 3

Texas Johnson 3

Texas Kaufman 19

Texas Kendall 1

Texas Kerr 5

Texas Lamar 3

Texas Lamb 5

Texas Lavaca 5

Texas Lee 11

Texas Leon 4

Texas Liberty 2

Texas Limestone 9

Texas Live Oak 3

Texas Lubbock 19

Texas McLennan 20

Texas Marion 1

Texas Martin 5

Texas Matagorda 31

Texas Midland 12

Texas Montgomery 114

Texas Nueces 26

Texas Orange 5

Texas Palo Pinto 12

Texas Parker 62

Texas Polk 5

Texas Potter 12

Texas Rains 2

Texas Randall 5

Texas Red River 4

Texas Rockwall 12

Texas Runnels 2

Texas Rusk 32

Texas Sabine 1

Texas San Jacinto 13

Texas Smith 204

Texas Swisher 5

Texas Tarrant 38

Texas Taylor 2

Texas Tom Green 12

Texas Travis 24

Texas Tyler 8

Texas Uvalde 8

Texas Val Verde 9

Texas Van Zandt 137

Texas Walker 50

Texas Waller 63
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C31

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Texas Washington 69

Texas Webb 3

Texas Wharton 54

Texas Wichita 2

Texas Willacy 9

Texas Williamson 24

Texas Wilson 8

Texas Wise 5

Texas Wood 20

Texas Zavala 2

Utah Davis 6

Utah Salt Lake 3

Utah Utah 6

Utah Weber 1

Vermont Lamoille 10

Vermont Windsor 11

Virginia Accomack 53

Virginia Amelia 4

Virginia Augusta 27

Virginia Bedford 10

Virginia Campbell 10

Virginia Caroline 3

Virginia Charlotte 2

Virginia Clarke 7

Virginia Culpeper 18

Virginia Essex 15

Virginia Floyd 30

Virginia Fluvanna 11

Virginia Franklin 5

Virginia Frederick 1

Virginia Gloucester 22

Virginia Halifax 8

Virginia Hanover 30

Virginia Henrico 5

Virginia Isle of Wight 23

Virginia King William 2

Virginia Loudoun 20

Virginia Mathews 9

Virginia Mecklenburg 15

Virginia Nelson 24

Virginia New Kent 7

Virginia Northampton 44

Virginia Orange 20

Virginia Patrick 13

Virginia Pittsylvania 5

Virginia Prince Edward 10
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C32

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Virginia Rappahannock 9

Virginia Richmond 21

Virginia Roanoke 8

Virginia Rockbridge 10

Virginia Rockingham 11

Virginia Shenandoah 4

Virginia Smyth 5

Virginia Southampton 1

Virginia Surry 8

Virginia Sussex 3

Virginia Washington 7

Virginia Westmoreland 19

Virginia Chesapeake City 22

Virginia Suffolk City 51

Virginia Virginia Beach City 12

Washington Adams 1

Washington Benton 16

Washington Clark 1

Washington Franklin 25

Washington Grant 55

Washington Grays Harbor 14

Washington King 25

Washington Klickitat 3

Washington Lewis 20

Washington Pierce 11

Washington Skagit 18

Washington Snohomish 7

Washington Spokane 6

Washington Stevens 19

Washington Thurston 15

Washington Walla Walla 6

Washington Whatcom 11

Washington Yakima 37

West Virginia Fayette 5

West Virginia Greenbrier 7

West Virginia Jefferson 15

West Virginia Putnam 1

West Virginia Taylor 1

West Virginia Wirt 4

Wisconsin Adams 2

Wisconsin Bayfield 1

Wisconsin Brown 8

Wisconsin Calumet 1

Wisconsin Chippewa 1

Wisconsin Columbia 1

Wisconsin Dane 17
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C33

Data for Figure 15. Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Wisconsin Dodge 4

Wisconsin Door 12

Wisconsin Eau Claire 7

Wisconsin Fond Du Lac 16

Wisconsin Green Lake 9

Wisconsin Jackson 23

Wisconsin Kenosha 38

Wisconsin Kewaunee 7

Wisconsin Lincoln 26

Wisconsin Manitowoc 5

Wisconsin Marathon 5

Wisconsin Milwaukee 2

Wisconsin Monroe 6

Wisconsin Oneida 2

Wisconsin Outagamie 3

Wisconsin Pierce 5

Wisconsin Polk 6

Wisconsin Portage 8

Wisconsin Racine 2

Wisconsin Rock 24

Wisconsin St. Croix 5

Wisconsin Shawano 1

Wisconsin Walworth 32

Wisconsin Washington 18

Wisconsin Waukesha 34

Wisconsin Waupaca 12

Wisconsin Waushara 5

Wisconsin Winnebago 9

Wisconsin Wood 4

Wyoming Natrona 13

Wyoming Platte 1

Wyoming Teton 1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C34

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Alabama Autauga 3

Alabama Baldwin 5

Alabama Calhoun 1

Alabama Chilton 1

Alabama Cleburne 1

Alabama Dallas 1

Alabama Elmore 2

Alabama Geneva 1

Alabama Greene 1

Alabama Limestone 4

Alabama Madison 1

Alabama Mobile 23

Alabama Montgomery 1

Alabama Shelby 1

Arizona Maricopa 7

Arizona Pima 1

Arizona Yavapai 1

Arkansas Columbia 1

Arkansas Poinsett 1

California Alameda 2

California Contra Costa 1

California Fresno 3

California Imperial 1

California Kern 5

California Los Angeles 4

California Madera 4

California Merced 3

California Monterey 3

California Orange 5

California Riverside 8

California Sacramento 2

California San Bernardino 2

California San Diego 13

California San Joaquin 3

California San Luis Obispo 4

California San Mateo 1

California Santa Barbara 1

California Santa Clara 2

California Santa Cruz 3

California Solano 2

California Sonoma 1

California Stanislaus 4

California Tehama 1

California Tulare 3

California Ventura 15

Colorado Adams 6
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C35

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Colorado Arapahoe 2

Colorado Boulder 1

Colorado Douglas 4

Colorado El Paso 1

Colorado Jefferson 1

Colorado Larimer 3

Colorado Lincoln 1

Colorado Logan 1

Colorado Prowers 1

Colorado Pueblo 1

Colorado Washington 2

Colorado Weld 8

Connecticut Fairfield 1

Connecticut Hartford 2

Connecticut Litchfield 1

Connecticut Middlesex 1

Connecticut New London 1

Connecticut Tolland 2

Connecticut Windham 1

Delaware Sussex 1

Florida Alachua 18

Florida Baker 1

Florida Brevard 8

Florida Broward 28

Florida Calhoun 1

Florida Charlotte 3

Florida Citrus 4

Florida Clay 3

Florida Collier 9

Florida Columbia 2

Florida De Soto 7

Florida Duval 2

Florida Escambia 1

Florida Gadsden 6

Florida Gilchrist 3

Florida Glades 9

Florida Hamilton 1

Florida Hardee 17

Florida Hendry 11

Florida Hernando 8

Florida Highlands 20

Florida Hillsborough 49

Florida Indian River 8

Florida Jefferson 10

Florida Lafayette 1

Florida Lake 67
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C36

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Florida Lee 69

Florida Leon 2

Florida Levy 5

Florida Madison 5

Florida Manatee 25

Florida Marion 12

Florida Martin 17

Florida Miami-Dade 371

Florida Okeechobee 5

Florida Orange 93

Florida Osceola 9

Florida Palm Beach 105

Florida Pasco 11

Florida Pinellas 2

Florida Polk 36

Florida Putnam 2

Florida St. Johns 3

Florida St. Lucie 25

Florida Santa Rosa 3

Florida Sarasota 5

Florida Seminole 2

Florida Sumter 14

Florida Suwannee 3

Florida Taylor 1

Florida Volusia 19

Georgia Baker 1

Georgia Carroll 1

Georgia Catoosa 1

Georgia Chatham 1

Georgia Cherokee 2

Georgia Clarke 2

Georgia Colquitt 2

Georgia Crawford 4

Georgia Dawson 1

Georgia Decatur 1

Georgia Emanuel 2

Georgia Evans 3

Georgia Fayette 1

Georgia Forsyth 1

Georgia Fulton 1

Georgia Grady 5

Georgia Hancock 1

Georgia Harris 1

Georgia Hart 1

Georgia Henry 2

Georgia Jasper 1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C37

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Georgia Lamar 3

Georgia Lowndes 1

Georgia McDuffie 2

Georgia Marion 1

Georgia Meriwether 2

Georgia Morgan 1

Georgia Murray 1

Georgia Oconee 4

Georgia Oglethorpe 3

Georgia Paulding 1

Georgia Peach 3

Georgia Pike 1

Georgia Rabun 1

Georgia Stewart 1

Georgia Tattnall 1

Georgia Thomas 1

Georgia Toombs 1

Georgia Towns 1

Georgia Walton 2

Georgia Wayne 1

Georgia Webster 1

Georgia Wilkes 1

Georgia Worth 1

Hawaii Hawaii 14

Hawaii Honolulu 3

Hawaii Kauai 3

Hawaii Maui & Kalwao 1

Idaho Gem 1

Idaho Minidoka 1

Illinois Boone 4

Illinois Champaign 1

Illinois Clinton 1

Illinois Cook 1

Illinois De Kalb 1

Illinois Fayette 1

Illinois Grundy 2

Illinois Iroquois 2

Illinois Kane 9

Illinois Kankakee 2

Illinois Kendall 1

Illinois Lake 5

Illinois La Salle 1

Illinois McHenry 15

Illinois McLean 2

Illinois Ogle 1

Illinois Peoria 1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C38

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Illinois Rock Island 1

Illinois Tazewell 1

Illinois Will 3

Illinois Winnebago 1

Illinois Woodford 1

Indiana Hamilton 1

Indiana Hendricks 1

Indiana Wayne 1

Iowa Floyd 1

Iowa Johnson 1

Iowa Pottawattamie 1

Iowa Shelby 1

Iowa Sioux 1

Iowa Winnebago 1

Kansas Douglas 1

Kansas Franklin 1

Kansas Johnson 4

Kansas Miami 2

Kansas Shawnee 1

Kentucky Calloway 5

Kentucky Hardin 1

Kentucky Nelson 1

Kentucky Warren 1

Louisiana Lafayette 1

Louisiana Plaquemines 3

Louisiana Rapides 11

Louisiana Saint Landry 1

Louisiana Tangipahoa 1

Louisiana Washington 2

Maryland Baltimore 2

Maryland Caroline 1

Maryland Cecil 2

Maryland Frederick 2

Maryland Howard 1

Maryland Queen Anne's 3

Maryland Wicomico 1

Massachusetts Middlesex 1

Massachusetts Plymouth 1

Michigan Allegan 3

Michigan Berrien 1

Michigan Eaton 1

Michigan Huron 1

Michigan Macomb 1

Michigan Ottawa 7

Michigan Van Buren 3

Minnesota Carver 2
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C39

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Minnesota Dakota 3

Minnesota Ramsey 2

Minnesota Rice 1

Minnesota Stearns 2

Minnesota Washington 5

Minnesota Wright 1

Mississippi Attala 1

Mississippi Benton 1

Mississippi George 10

Mississippi Jackson 1

Mississippi Pontotoc 1

Mississippi Stone 1

Mississippi Tippah 1

Missouri Atchison 1

Missouri Cass 2

Missouri Clay 1

Missouri Grundy 1

Missouri Harrison 1

Missouri Jackson 4

Missouri Lincoln 1

Missouri Linn 1

Missouri St. Charles 1

Missouri St. Louis 2

Montana Cascade 1

Montana Ravalli 1

Nebraska Box Butte 1

Nebraska Burt 1

Nebraska Douglas 1

Nebraska Keith 1

Nebraska Lancaster 2

Nebraska Madison 1

Nebraska Sarpy 1

Nebraska Saunders 1

Nebraska Thayer 1

New Hampshire Rockingham 1

New Jersey Atlantic 2

New Jersey Burlington 2

New Jersey Cape May 1

New Jersey Cumberland 6

New Jersey Gloucester 1

New Jersey Mercer 1

New Jersey Monmouth 2

New Jersey Salem 4

New Mexico Dona Ana 1

New York Cattaraugus 2

New York Erie 2
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C40

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

New York Suffolk 9

New York Tompkins 1

North Carolina Avery 1

North Carolina Brunswick 1

North Carolina Burke 11

North Carolina Cabarrus 2

North Carolina Caldwell 5

North Carolina Catawba 1

North Carolina Cherokee 1

North Carolina Chowan 1

North Carolina Duplin 1

North Carolina Edgecombe 1

North Carolina Franklin 1

North Carolina Greene 1

North Carolina Guilford 2

North Carolina Halifax 1

North Carolina Harnett 2

North Carolina Lenoir 1

North Carolina McDowell 3

North Carolina Martin 1

North Carolina Mecklenburg 2

North Carolina Nash 2

North Carolina Northampton 1

North Carolina Pender 3

North Carolina Pitt 2

North Carolina Randolph 1

North Carolina Robeson 1

North Carolina Rockingham 2

North Carolina Stanly 1

North Carolina Wake 2

North Carolina Warren 1

North Carolina Wilson 2

North Dakota Burleigh 1

North Dakota La Moure 1

North Dakota Nelson 1

Ohio Ashtabula 1

Ohio Clark 1

Ohio Crawford 1

Ohio Delaware 1

Ohio Erie 1

Ohio Lake 3

Ohio Lorain 1

Ohio Medina 1

Ohio Miami 1

Ohio Muskingum 1

Ohio Pickaway 1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C41

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Ohio Wood 1

Oklahoma Canadian 1

Oklahoma Cherokee 5

Oklahoma Cleveland 2

Oklahoma Garvin 1

Oklahoma Grady 1

Oklahoma Murray 1

Oklahoma Muskogee 1

Oklahoma Pontotoc 1

Oklahoma Rogers 2

Oklahoma Wagoner 2

Oregon Clackamas 14

Oregon Douglas 1

Oregon Jefferson 1

Oregon Lane 1

Oregon Marion 16

Oregon Multnomah 7

Oregon Polk 4

Oregon Umatilla 1

Oregon Washington 11

Oregon Yamhill 8

Pennsylvania Bucks 4

Pennsylvania Chester 2

Pennsylvania Lancaster 3

Pennsylvania Montgomery 1

Pennsylvania Schuylkill 1

South Carolina Abbeville 1

South Carolina Aiken 1

South Carolina Anderson 2

South Carolina Bamberg 1

South Carolina Barnwell 2

South Carolina Berkeley 1

South Carolina Calhoun 1

South Carolina Charleston 7

South Carolina Clarendon 2

South Carolina Colleton 3

South Carolina Darlington 1

South Carolina Dorchester 2

South Carolina Edgefield 1

South Carolina Fairfield 1

South Carolina Florence 1

South Carolina Georgetown 4

South Carolina Greenville 1

South Carolina Jasper 1

South Carolina Lexington 1

South Carolina Oconee 1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C42

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

South Carolina Orangeburg 5

South Carolina Richland 1

South Carolina Spartanburg 2

South Carolina Sumter 1

South Carolina Williamsburg 1

South Carolina York 2

South Dakota Jackson 1

Tennessee Cannon 6

Tennessee Chester 1

Tennessee Coffee 4

Tennessee De Kalb 20

Tennessee Franklin 24

Tennessee Grundy 1

Tennessee Haywood 1

Tennessee Henderson 1

Tennessee Johnson 3

Tennessee Lincoln 1

Tennessee Marshall 1

Tennessee Robertson 1

Tennessee Sumner 1

Tennessee Warren 44

Tennessee White 1

Texas Anderson 2

Texas Austin 1

Texas Bastrop 1

Texas Bexar 2

Texas Bowie 1

Texas Brazoria 6

Texas Brazos 1

Texas Brown 2

Texas Cameron 6

Texas Cass 2

Texas Cherokee 1

Texas Collin 2

Texas Colorado 3

Texas Dallam 1

Texas Dallas 1

Texas Denton 1

Texas Eastland 1

Texas Ellis 2

Texas Erath 1

Texas Falls 1

Texas Fannin 4

Texas Fayette 1

Texas Fort Bend 5

Texas Frio 1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C43

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Texas Grayson 1

Texas Grimes 2

Texas Harris 6

Texas Henderson 2

Texas Hidalgo 4

Texas Hunt 3

Texas Jasper 1

Texas Kerr 1

Texas Leon 1

Texas Limestone 1

Texas McLennan 1

Texas Matagorda 1

Texas Montgomery 3

Texas Nueces 2

Texas Potter 2

Texas Rockwall 1

Texas Rusk 1

Texas Smith 9

Texas Tarrant 2

Texas Tom Green 1

Texas Uvalde 1

Texas Van Zandt 7

Texas Walker 2

Texas Waller 4

Texas Washington 2

Texas Wharton 3

Texas Williamson 2

Texas Wood 1

Utah Davis 1

Utah Salt Lake 1

Utah Utah 1

Virginia Accomack 2

Virginia Floyd 1

Virginia Gloucester 2

Virginia Hanover 1

Virginia Isle of Wight 1

Virginia Mathews 1

Virginia Nelson 1

Virginia Northampton 4

Virginia Richmond 1

Virginia Chesapeake City 1

Virginia Suffolk City 2

Virginia Virginia Beach City 1

Washington Benton 1

Washington Franklin 3

Washington Grant 3
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C44

Data for Figure 16. Policies Earning Premium 2011

State County Policies

Washington Grays Harbor 1

Washington King 1

Washington Lewis 1

Washington Skagit 1

Washington Stevens 1

Washington Yakima 3

Wisconsin Adams 1

Wisconsin Door 1

Wisconsin Eau Claire 1

Wisconsin Fond Du Lac 1

Wisconsin Jackson 1

Wisconsin Kenosha 2

Wisconsin Outagamie 1

Wisconsin Pierce 1

Wisconsin Rock 1

Wisconsin Walworth 1

Wisconsin Waukesha 2

Wyoming Natrona 1

Wyoming Platte 1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C45

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Alabama Autauga 50.4

Alabama Baldwin 32.2

Alabama Bullock 14.8

Alabama Calhoun 10.7

Alabama Chambers 1.3

Alabama Cherokee 37.7

Alabama Chilton 1.1

Alabama Cleburne 1.8

Alabama Coffee 0.7

Alabama Cullman 21.9

Alabama Dale 0.3

Alabama Dallas 13.5

Alabama Elmore 5.2

Alabama Escambia 30.6

Alabama Etowah 0.1

Alabama Franklin 11.9

Alabama Geneva 15.0

Alabama Greene 1.4

Alabama Lauderdale 0.3

Alabama Lee 1.4

Alabama Limestone 53.9

Alabama Macon 6.1

Alabama Madison 19.8

Alabama Marshall 0.9

Alabama Mobile 198.9

Alabama Montgomery 28.0

Alabama Morgan 0.6

Alabama Pickens 0.0

Alabama Pike 0.1

Alabama Randolph 0.0

Alabama Russell 21.9

Alabama Saint Clair 1.3

Alabama Shelby 21.3

Alabama Talladega 0.1

Alabama Tuscaloosa 0.1

Alabama Washington 0.3

Arizona Maricopa 207.8

Arizona Mohave 0.1

Arizona Pima 9.9

Arizona Pinal 6.4

Arizona Yavapai 14.1

Arizona Yuma 0.3

Arkansas Arkansas 0.1

Arkansas Benton 0.0

Arkansas Clay 4.6

Arkansas Columbia 20.7
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C46

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Arkansas Crawford 3.1

Arkansas Faulkner 1.0

Arkansas Independence 0.3

Arkansas Little River 0.4

Arkansas Madison 0.3

Arkansas Monroe 0.2

Arkansas Montgomery 0.2

Arkansas Nevada 2.3

Arkansas Newton 35.8

Arkansas Poinsett 9.7

Arkansas Pulaski 5.5

Arkansas Van Buren 0.1

Arkansas White 0.6

California Alameda 31.7

California Butte 15.6

California Colusa 8.7

California Contra Costa 79.0

California Eldorado 0.3

California Fresno 75.1

California Glenn 0.8

California Humboldt 8.5

California Imperial 35.0

California Kern 955.3

California Kings 2.8

California Lassen 1.2

California Los Angeles 353.4

California Madera 55.4

California Mendocino 0.8

California Merced 80.8

California Monterey 252.6

California Napa 2.2

California Nevada 0.6

California Orange 576.1

California Placer 12.7

California Riverside 416.0

California Sacramento 81.1

California San Benito 38.4

California San Bernardino 37.7

California San Diego 703.7

California San Joaquin 216.0

California San Luis Obispo 54.3

California San Mateo 103.0

California Santa Barbara 42.1

California Santa Clara 42.1

California Santa Cruz 58.8

California Shasta 3.6
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C47

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

California Siskiyou 20.5

California Solano 234.4

California Sonoma 23.0

California Stanislaus 128.1

California Sutter 27.6

California Tehama 4.1

California Tulare 500.4

California Ventura 386.6

California Yolo 0.6

California Yuba 2.7

Colorado Adams 114.6

Colorado Arapahoe 28.9

Colorado Boulder 14.2

Colorado Broomfield 0.2

Colorado Denver 2.9

Colorado Douglas 25.7

Colorado Elbert 0.5

Colorado El Paso 40.2

Colorado Fremont 0.1

Colorado Garfield 0.0

Colorado Gunnison 0.0

Colorado Jefferson 31.9

Colorado Larimer 61.1

Colorado Lincoln 0.5

Colorado Logan 0.2

Colorado Mesa 0.5

Colorado Montezuma 0.0

Colorado Otero 0.3

Colorado Prowers 0.9

Colorado Pueblo 6.7

Colorado Routt 0.8

Colorado Washington 11.6

Colorado Weld 136.6

Connecticut Fairfield 10.2

Connecticut Hartford 200.5

Connecticut Litchfield 5.2

Connecticut Middlesex 150.9

Connecticut New Haven 36.0

Connecticut New London 69.7

Connecticut Tolland 6.3

Connecticut Windham 7.3

Delaware Kent 8.7

Delaware New Castle 5.4

Delaware Sussex 13.6

Florida Alachua 166.6

Florida Baker 59.3
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C48

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Florida Brevard 68.1

Florida Broward 208.0

Florida Calhoun 6.1

Florida Charlotte 10.9

Florida Citrus 9.4

Florida Clay 35.4

Florida Collier 112.5

Florida Columbia 16.2

Florida Dade 694.8

Florida De Soto 39.5

Florida Dixie 0.5

Florida Duval 13.7

Florida Escambia 2.9

Florida Flagler 48.1

Florida Gadsden 258.5

Florida Gilchrist 20.6

Florida Glades 42.8

Florida Hamilton 9.7

Florida Hardee 147.6

Florida Hendry 59.8

Florida Hernando 114.2

Florida Highlands 125.5

Florida Hillsborough 370.6

Florida Indian River 44.3

Florida Jackson 11.0

Florida Jefferson 77.3

Florida Lafayette 20.1

Florida Lake 670.7

Florida Lee 570.6

Florida Leon 6.4

Florida Levy 121.2

Florida Liberty 1.0

Florida Madison 22.5

Florida Manatee 209.5

Florida Marion 92.2

Florida Martin 274.1

Florida Miami-Dade 3758.8

Florida Monroe 0.7

Florida Okaloosa 1.5

Florida Okeechobee 81.3

Florida Orange 507.7

Florida Osceola 37.4

Florida Palm Beach 1218.8

Florida Pasco 54.4

Florida Pinellas 7.0

Florida Polk 157.5
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C49

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Florida Putnam 88.5

Florida St. Johns 21.1

Florida St. Lucie 167.8

Florida Santa Rosa 33.3

Florida Sarasota 31.7

Florida Seminole 82.6

Florida Sumter 150.4

Florida Suwannee 52.5

Florida Taylor 34.1

Florida Volusia 147.0

Florida Wakulla 0.8

Florida Walton 0.5

Georgia Bacon 1.4

Georgia Baker 0.9

Georgia Baldwin 0.1

Georgia Banks 2.6

Georgia Bartow 6.6

Georgia Berrien 0.8

Georgia Brooks 2.3

Georgia Bulloch 36.3

Georgia Camden 0.3

Georgia Carroll 1.1

Georgia Catoosa 0.3

Georgia Charlton 0.0

Georgia Chatham 2.2

Georgia Cherokee 5.1

Georgia Clarke 17.7

Georgia Clay 0.6

Georgia Clinch 0.6

Georgia Cobb 0.7

Georgia Coffee 10.1

Georgia Colquitt 17.1

Georgia Cook 1.5

Georgia Coweta 1.1

Georgia Crawford 13.5

Georgia Dawson 0.8

Georgia Decatur 13.2

Georgia Dooly 24.4

Georgia Douglas 2.4

Georgia Effingham 0.4

Georgia Emanuel 9.3

Georgia Evans 18.5

Georgia Fannin 22.0

Georgia Fayette 4.1

Georgia Floyd 1.5

Georgia Forsyth 9.7
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C50

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Georgia Fulton 5.4

Georgia Gordon 0.6

Georgia Grady 236.2

Georgia Greene 6.1

Georgia Gwinnett 8.6

Georgia Hancock 0.3

Georgia Haralson 0.1

Georgia Harris 1.3

Georgia Hart 7.1

Georgia Henry 6.4

Georgia Houston 0.7

Georgia Jasper 6.8

Georgia Jeff Davis 1.9

Georgia Johnson 5.8

Georgia Lamar 26.3

Georgia Lowndes 10.7

Georgia Lumpkin 2.4

Georgia McDuffie 180.8

Georgia Marion 24.0

Georgia Meriwether 50.3

Georgia Mitchell 0.2

Georgia Monroe 0.1

Georgia Morgan 16.6

Georgia Murray 13.7

Georgia Newton 0.2

Georgia Oconee 160.3

Georgia Oglethorpe 10.6

Georgia Paulding 2.4

Georgia Peach 13.0

Georgia Pierce 0.8

Georgia Pike 9.7

Georgia Quitman 0.6

Georgia Rabun 0.5

Georgia Randolph 36.3

Georgia Rockdale 0.0

Georgia Spalding 1.2

Georgia Stewart 3.5

Georgia Tattnall 26.7

Georgia Thomas 18.8

Georgia Tift 1.9

Georgia Toombs 12.4

Georgia Towns 0.4

Georgia Turner 28.4

Georgia Union 2.6

Georgia Walker 0.1

Georgia Walton 34.3
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C51

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Georgia Washington 0.4

Georgia Wayne 6.5

Georgia Webster 1.0

Georgia Wheeler 3.5

Georgia Wilkes 1.8

Georgia Worth 0.2

Hawaii Hawaii 199.1

Hawaii Honolulu 35.5

Hawaii Kauai 16.0

Hawaii Maui & Kalwao 8.2

Idaho Ada 5.7

Idaho Bingham 0.3

Idaho Bonneville 0.9

Idaho Boundary 2.0

Idaho Canyon 3.0

Idaho Gem 24.1

Idaho Gooding 0.0

Idaho Jefferson 0.0

Idaho Kootenai 0.0

Idaho Madison 0.2

Idaho Minidoka 9.3

Idaho Teton 2.1

Illinois Adams 10.1

Illinois Boone 73.5

Illinois Bureau 0.1

Illinois Carroll 0.4

Illinois Champaign 28.9

Illinois Christian 2.4

Illinois Clinton 65.4

Illinois Cook 25.2

Illinois Cumberland 11.2

Illinois De Kalb 108.2

Illinois Du Page 2.2

Illinois Fayette 2.6

Illinois Grundy 4.4

Illinois Hamilton 2.1

Illinois Hancock 0.5

Illinois Henry 7.3

Illinois Iroquois 40.8

Illinois Jefferson 0.1

Illinois Jersey 1.7

Illinois Kane 273.9

Illinois Kankakee 165.8

Illinois Kendall 55.8

Illinois Lake 85.7

Illinois La Salle 1.6
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C52

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Illinois Lee 40.3

Illinois Logan 0.0

Illinois McDonough 0.0

Illinois McHenry 223.0

Illinois McLean 1.6

Illinois Macon 13.1

Illinois Madison 24.7

Illinois Ogle 2.4

Illinois Peoria 15.9

Illinois Perry 0.0

Illinois Pike 24.9

Illinois Putnam 27.3

Illinois Rock Island 10.1

Illinois St. Clair 10.6

Illinois Tazewell 4.8

Illinois Union 22.2

Illinois Vermilion 0.0

Illinois Whiteside 0.9

Illinois Will 21.7

Illinois Winnebago 3.8

Illinois Woodford 6.2

Indiana Allen 1.8

Indiana Carroll 0.7

Indiana Clark 5.6

Indiana De Kalb 2.2

Indiana Hamilton 15.8

Indiana Hancock 2.4

Indiana Hendricks 12.7

Indiana Howard 1.5

Indiana Jasper 0.4

Indiana Johnson 31.9

Indiana Lake 2.1

Indiana Montgomery 0.2

Indiana St. Joseph 1.8

Indiana Tippecanoe 0.0

Indiana Wayne 4.2

Indiana Whitley 18.7

Iowa Boone 0.7

Iowa Cerro Gordo 1.4

Iowa Clay 0.5

Iowa Davis 0.2

Iowa Decatur 0.1

Iowa Floyd 29.6

Iowa Fremont 16.6

Iowa Greene 1.0

Iowa Johnson 5.9
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C53

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Iowa Mahaska 0.7

Iowa Marion 1.5

Iowa Marshall 10.2

Iowa Montgomery 5.1

Iowa Page 6.0

Iowa Polk 0.9

Iowa Pottawattamie 24.7

Iowa Shelby 7.3

Iowa Sioux 5.1

Iowa Warren 0.4

Iowa Washington 0.0

Iowa Winnebago 0.1

Iowa Woodbury 0.3

Kansas Butler 0.3

Kansas Douglas 7.4

Kansas Franklin 15.0

Kansas Geary 2.2

Kansas Johnson 79.1

Kansas Linn 2.7

Kansas Miami 8.1

Kansas Neosho 0.9

Kansas Reno 0.5

Kansas Sedgwick 0.9

Kansas Shawnee 1.7

Kansas Trego 0.0

Kansas Wabaunsee 2.0

Kentucky Boone 7.0

Kentucky Bourbon 3.6

Kentucky Calloway 7.3

Kentucky Carter 0.1

Kentucky Daviess 0.3

Kentucky Edmonson 0.6

Kentucky Fayette 0.2

Kentucky Franklin 0.6

Kentucky Graves 0.1

Kentucky Hardin 7.4

Kentucky Henderson 1.7

Kentucky Henry 1.5

Kentucky Jefferson 0.5

Kentucky Jessamine 0.0

Kentucky Lincoln 2.1

Kentucky McCracken 2.7

Kentucky Madison 2.8

Kentucky Nelson 0.5

Kentucky Nicholas 3.9

Kentucky Oldham 6.1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C54

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Kentucky Shelby 21.9

Kentucky Spencer 6.7

Kentucky Warren 0.1

Kentucky Washington 14.5

Louisiana Acadia 1.5

Louisiana Bienville 15.4

Louisiana Bossier 1.0

Louisiana Caddo 1.3

Louisiana Calcasieu 0.4

Louisiana Catahoula 0.1

Louisiana Claiborne 0.5

Louisiana Concordia 1.1

Louisiana Franklin 0.7

Louisiana Iberia 8.8

Louisiana Iberville 2.4

Louisiana Jefferson 0.2

Louisiana Jefferson Davis 0.8

Louisiana Lafayette 3.6

Louisiana Lincoln 0.6

Louisiana Madison 0.3

Louisiana Plaquemines 9.2

Louisiana Rapides 142.8

Louisiana Richland 0.2

Louisiana Sabine 0.0

Louisiana Saint Charles 0.2

Louisiana Saint Landry 6.5

Louisiana Saint Tammany 2.5

Louisiana Tangipahoa 27.8

Louisiana Vermilion 0.1

Louisiana Vernon 0.0

Louisiana Washington 61.6

Louisiana Webster 0.2

Louisiana Winn 0.1

Maine Androscoggin 2.2

Maine Penobscot 0.1

Maryland Anne Arundel 6.7

Maryland Baltimore 26.6

Maryland Caroline 13.3

Maryland Carroll 14.7

Maryland Cecil 186.9

Maryland Dorchester 1.6

Maryland Frederick 33.2

Maryland Harford 2.7

Maryland Howard 26.3

Maryland Kent 124.9

Maryland Montgomery 39.1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C55

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Maryland Prince George's 2.5

Maryland Queen Anne's 78.1

Maryland Somerset 0.7

Maryland Talbot 0.2

Maryland Wicomico 110.5

Maryland Worcester 1.3

Massachusetts Bristol 5.6

Massachusetts Franklin 0.2

Massachusetts Hampden 12.1

Massachusetts Hampshire 0.5

Massachusetts Middlesex 70.6

Massachusetts Plymouth 1.6

Massachusetts Worcester 1.7

Michigan Allegan 118.4

Michigan Antrim 0.3

Michigan Barry 0.1

Michigan Berrien 30.4

Michigan Calhoun 4.7

Michigan Charlevoix 0.1

Michigan Crawford 0.1

Michigan Eaton 4.8

Michigan Genesee 3.6

Michigan Huron 1.2

Michigan Ingham 0.9

Michigan Ionia 1.9

Michigan Jackson 5.3

Michigan Kalamazoo 104.7

Michigan Kent 23.5

Michigan Lapeer 0.7

Michigan Lenawee 5.2

Michigan Livingston 7.0

Michigan Macomb 27.1

Michigan Missaukee 3.7

Michigan Monroe 59.3

Michigan Montcalm 26.7

Michigan Newaygo 3.2

Michigan Oakland 8.7

Michigan Ottawa 440.4

Michigan St. Clair 2.2

Michigan Sanilac 2.9

Michigan Shiawassee 0.2

Michigan Tuscola 0.0

Michigan Van Buren 47.0

Michigan Washtenaw 26.7

Michigan Wayne 13.2

Minnesota Anoka 7.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C56

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Minnesota Benton 0.3

Minnesota Blue Earth 0.2

Minnesota Carlton 0.0

Minnesota Carver 29.2

Minnesota Chisago 0.3

Minnesota Cottonwood 0.7

Minnesota Dakota 227.5

Minnesota Douglas 0.1

Minnesota Hennepin 2.1

Minnesota Houston 0.4

Minnesota Hubbard 13.4

Minnesota Isanti 3.2

Minnesota Itasca 0.0

Minnesota Jackson 2.3

Minnesota Kanabec 6.1

Minnesota Le Sueur 1.4

Minnesota Lincoln 1.0

Minnesota Lyon 0.0

Minnesota Meeker 0.1

Minnesota Mille Lacs 0.0

Minnesota Pine 100.2

Minnesota Polk 9.3

Minnesota Ramsey 18.5

Minnesota Rice 13.9

Minnesota Scott 8.3

Minnesota Stearns 5.7

Minnesota Washington 185.6

Minnesota Wright 11.4

Mississippi Adams 0.3

Mississippi Attala 3.7

Mississippi Benton 0.4

Mississippi Copiah 39.6

Mississippi Covington 0.4

Mississippi George 42.2

Mississippi Harrison 1.2

Mississippi Hinds 0.7

Mississippi Jackson 2.8

Mississippi Lamar 0.5

Mississippi Madison 0.8

Mississippi Marshall 0.1

Mississippi Oktibbeha 0.1

Mississippi Pontotoc 7.5

Mississippi Stone 20.7

Mississippi Tippah 6.6

Mississippi Walthall 0.0

Mississippi Wayne 29.9
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C57

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Mississippi Winston 0.1

Missouri Atchison 0.6

Missouri Bates 0.7

Missouri Boone 1.0

Missouri Cass 32.6

Missouri Clay 1.4

Missouri Cole 0.2

Missouri Crawford 0.2

Missouri Dade 0.2

Missouri Franklin 0.6

Missouri Grundy 2.6

Missouri Harrison 4.7

Missouri Holt 0.4

Missouri Jackson 13.3

Missouri Jasper 11.3

Missouri Jefferson 4.2

Missouri Lafayette 0.3

Missouri Lawrence 0.2

Missouri Lincoln 16.8

Missouri Linn 1.8

Missouri Macon 0.2

Missouri Madison 2.9

Missouri Maries 0.1

Missouri Mississippi 0.3

Missouri Moniteau 1.5

Missouri Montgomery 31.2

Missouri New Madrid 2.5

Missouri Pike 6.0

Missouri St. Charles 4.4

Missouri St. Francois 1.5

Missouri St. Louis 9.4

Missouri Saline 0.1

Missouri Scott 0.2

Missouri Warren 9.6

Missouri Webster 0.0

Missouri St. Louis City 0.0

Montana Beaverhead 0.1

Montana Cascade 0.3

Montana Flathead 9.4

Montana Ravalli 9.1

Montana Sanders 4.6

Nebraska Adams 0.1

Nebraska Box Butte 0.5

Nebraska Burt 1.2

Nebraska Cuming 0.6

Nebraska Dodge 0.2
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C58

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Nebraska Douglas 6.0

Nebraska Keith 2.7

Nebraska Lancaster 4.3

Nebraska Lincoln 8.5

Nebraska Madison 0.3

Nebraska Sarpy 2.7

Nebraska Saunders 12.2

Nebraska Scotts Bluff 0.0

Nebraska Thayer 4.2

Nebraska Washington 0.0

Nevada Clark 5.2

Nevada Nye 0.4

New Hampshire Hillsborough 1.2

New Hampshire Merrimack 22.8

New Hampshire Rockingham 6.9

New Hampshire Strafford 2.4

New Jersey Atlantic 3.5

New Jersey Burlington 67.0

New Jersey Camden 0.4

New Jersey Cape May 32.6

New Jersey Cumberland 307.0

New Jersey Gloucester 3.0

New Jersey Hunterdon 1.1

New Jersey Mercer 1.6

New Jersey Middlesex 11.8

New Jersey Monmouth 13.1

New Jersey Morris 7.1

New Jersey Ocean 1.1

New Jersey Salem 14.9

New Jersey Somerset 3.2

New Jersey Sussex 1.6

New Jersey Union 6.8

New Jersey Warren 1.8

New Mexico Curry 0.5

New Mexico Dona Ana 6.3

New Mexico Lea 1.8

New Mexico Mora 0.6

New Mexico Quay 1.1

New York Albany 2.0

New York Cattaraugus 45.3

New York Cayuga 0.4

New York Chautauqua 5.7

New York Dutchess 0.7

New York Erie 59.8

New York Genesee 0.2

New York Monroe 0.8
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C59

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

New York Oneida 7.2

New York Onondaga 4.8

New York Ontario 1.7

New York Otsego 0.8

New York Rensselaer 0.4

New York Schenectady 4.9

New York Schoharie 9.1

New York Schuyler 0.0

New York Suffolk 175.4

New York Tioga 2.1

New York Tompkins 6.0

New York Wayne 7.1

New York Westchester 0.9

North Carolina Alamance 2.3

North Carolina Alexander 1.7

North Carolina Anson 0.3

North Carolina Ashe 0.8

North Carolina Avery 15.7

North Carolina Beaufort 0.3

North Carolina Bladen 1.3

North Carolina Brunswick 9.0

North Carolina Buncombe 25.6

North Carolina Burke 169.3

North Carolina Cabarrus 16.3

North Carolina Caldwell 216.7

North Carolina Caswell 1.9

North Carolina Catawba 25.1

North Carolina Chatham 14.8

North Carolina Cherokee 1.0

North Carolina Chowan 3.5

North Carolina Cleveland 5.0

North Carolina Columbus 6.8

North Carolina Craven 0.9

North Carolina Cumberland 10.3

North Carolina Davie 0.2

North Carolina Duplin 4.6

North Carolina Edgecombe 45.8

North Carolina Forsyth 3.6

North Carolina Franklin 45.6

North Carolina Gaston 2.5

North Carolina Granville 0.4

North Carolina Greene 0.5

North Carolina Guilford 38.9

North Carolina Halifax 2.5

North Carolina Harnett 52.9

North Carolina Haywood 1.8
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C60

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

North Carolina Henderson 26.5

North Carolina Hyde 0.2

North Carolina Iredell 13.6

North Carolina Jackson 0.0

North Carolina Johnston 51.6

North Carolina Lee 2.0

North Carolina Lenoir 53.3

North Carolina Lincoln 3.7

North Carolina McDowell 82.9

North Carolina Macon 0.0

North Carolina Madison 8.3

North Carolina Martin 1.6

North Carolina Mecklenburg 145.7

North Carolina Mitchell 0.1

North Carolina Montgomery 2.5

North Carolina Moore 24.4

North Carolina Nash 33.7

North Carolina New Hanover 3.5

North Carolina Northampton 1.9

North Carolina Onslow 1.7

North Carolina Orange 2.6

North Carolina Pasquotank 3.0

North Carolina Pender 72.1

North Carolina Pitt 17.9

North Carolina Polk 5.5

North Carolina Randolph 28.4

North Carolina Richmond 0.1

North Carolina Robeson 37.4

North Carolina Rockingham 6.6

North Carolina Rowan 22.0

North Carolina Rutherford 2.5

North Carolina Sampson 10.3

North Carolina Stanly 7.6

North Carolina Stokes 0.0

North Carolina Surry 1.2

North Carolina Transylvania 9.7

North Carolina Union 18.9

North Carolina Vance 2.8

North Carolina Wake 52.0

North Carolina Warren 5.0

North Carolina Watauga 1.1

North Carolina Wayne 33.6

North Carolina Wilkes 7.3

North Carolina Wilson 109.8

North Carolina Yadkin 1.3

North Carolina Yancey 1.8
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C61

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

North Dakota Burleigh 1.7

North Dakota Dickey 1.1

North Dakota La Moure 1.6

North Dakota McHenry 2.8

North Dakota Nelson 6.2

North Dakota Sargent 0.6

North Dakota Stark 0.0

North Dakota Ward 2.1

Ohio Ashland 1.7

Ohio Ashtabula 6.0

Ohio Athens 3.8

Ohio Auglaize 3.9

Ohio Brown 4.0

Ohio Carroll 70.1

Ohio Champaign 0.3

Ohio Clark 183.4

Ohio Clermont 0.0

Ohio Coshocton 1.7

Ohio Crawford 1.9

Ohio Cuyahoga 0.5

Ohio Darke 0.4

Ohio Delaware 0.6

Ohio Erie 110.3

Ohio Franklin 16.5

Ohio Greene 0.2

Ohio Hardin 0.0

Ohio Hocking 1.5

Ohio Lake 354.9

Ohio Lorain 132.5

Ohio Lucas 1.8

Ohio Mahoning 0.1

Ohio Medina 13.3

Ohio Meigs 0.3

Ohio Miami 5.5

Ohio Montgomery 9.6

Ohio Muskingum 7.1

Ohio Paulding 0.1

Ohio Pickaway 9.9

Ohio Portage 0.9

Ohio Richland 0.4

Ohio Stark 2.5

Ohio Summit 1.1

Ohio Trumbull 0.2

Ohio Union 2.0

Ohio Warren 19.3

Ohio Wayne 3.8
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C62

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Ohio Wood 2.0

Oklahoma Canadian 1.4

Oklahoma Cherokee 333.4

Oklahoma Cleveland 36.8

Oklahoma Comanche 0.1

Oklahoma Garvin 10.4

Oklahoma Grady 0.6

Oklahoma Kingfisher 0.5

Oklahoma McClain 6.4

Oklahoma Mayes 0.1

Oklahoma Murray 2.5

Oklahoma Muskogee 72.4

Oklahoma Oklahoma 11.4

Oklahoma Okmulgee 0.1

Oklahoma Payne 0.0

Oklahoma Pontotoc 1.9

Oklahoma Rogers 14.1

Oklahoma Wagoner 10.7

Oregon Benton 0.8

Oregon Clackamas 1011.9

Oregon Columbia 23.8

Oregon Curry 3.1

Oregon Deschutes 0.3

Oregon Douglas 34.9

Oregon Hood River 1.7

Oregon Jefferson 3.1

Oregon Josephine 0.0

Oregon Klamath 1.8

Oregon Lane 27.1

Oregon Lincoln 0.5

Oregon Linn 32.7

Oregon Marion 765.7

Oregon Multnomah 189.4

Oregon Polk 75.1

Oregon Umatilla 55.7

Oregon Washington 1205.4

Oregon Yamhill 922.5

Pennsylvania Adams 8.9

Pennsylvania Allegheny 0.2

Pennsylvania Armstrong 1.1

Pennsylvania Berks 18.6

Pennsylvania Bradford 6.5

Pennsylvania Bucks 24.2

Pennsylvania Butler 1.4

Pennsylvania Cambria 2.6

Pennsylvania Carbon 0.1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C63

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Pennsylvania Centre 0.0

Pennsylvania Chester 41.8

Pennsylvania Clearfield 0.3

Pennsylvania Columbia 1.7

Pennsylvania Cumberland 0.2

Pennsylvania Erie 72.2

Pennsylvania Fayette 1.0

Pennsylvania Franklin 1.4

Pennsylvania Indiana 8.5

Pennsylvania Juniata 0.1

Pennsylvania Lackawanna 1.9

Pennsylvania Lancaster 15.6

Pennsylvania Lehigh 12.4

Pennsylvania Luzerne 0.2

Pennsylvania Lycoming 1.6

Pennsylvania Mercer 0.4

Pennsylvania Monroe 1.7

Pennsylvania Montgomery 14.0

Pennsylvania Montour 18.3

Pennsylvania Northampton 2.7

Pennsylvania Northumberland 2.7

Pennsylvania Perry 0.0

Pennsylvania Pike 0.2

Pennsylvania Schuylkill 54.1

Pennsylvania Snyder 0.1

Pennsylvania Somerset 4.4

Pennsylvania Tioga 0.1

Pennsylvania Union 0.1

Pennsylvania Wayne 0.5

Pennsylvania Westmoreland 53.5

Pennsylvania York 4.2

Rhode Island Bristol 5.6

Rhode Island Washington 1.9

South Carolina Abbeville 29.0

South Carolina Aiken 7.3

South Carolina Allendale 0.1

South Carolina Anderson 31.4

South Carolina Bamberg 17.0

South Carolina Barnwell 3.0

South Carolina Berkeley 148.4

South Carolina Calhoun 17.6

South Carolina Charleston 43.3

South Carolina Cherokee 3.7

South Carolina Chesterfield 2.9

South Carolina Clarendon 10.4

South Carolina Colleton 20.3
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C64

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

South Carolina Darlington 8.3

South Carolina Dorchester 15.3

South Carolina Edgefield 179.4

South Carolina Fairfield 7.4

South Carolina Florence 3.0

South Carolina Georgetown 74.3

South Carolina Greenville 3.3

South Carolina Greenwood 0.8

South Carolina Hampton 1.7

South Carolina Horry 5.1

South Carolina Jasper 5.7

South Carolina Kershaw 0.2

South Carolina Lancaster 1.4

South Carolina Laurens 1.3

South Carolina Lee 5.2

South Carolina Lexington 5.2

South Carolina Marion 0.4

South Carolina Marlboro 32.1

South Carolina Newberry 0.8

South Carolina Oconee 6.2

South Carolina Orangeburg 109.4

South Carolina Pickens 18.9

South Carolina Richland 5.6

South Carolina Spartanburg 29.1

South Carolina Sumter 5.5

South Carolina Williamsburg 11.2

South Carolina York 135.0

South Dakota Bennett 0.1

South Dakota Codington 2.0

South Dakota Jackson 1.4

South Dakota Lake 4.9

South Dakota Pennington 2.9

South Dakota Spink 0.8

South Dakota Yankton 3.1

Tennessee Bedford 0.1

Tennessee Blount 7.4

Tennessee Cannon 23.4

Tennessee Carter 0.9

Tennessee Chester 0.0

Tennessee Coffee 177.7

Tennessee Davidson 0.4

Tennessee De Kalb 392.2

Tennessee Fentress 2.7

Tennessee Franklin 390.1

Tennessee Gibson 0.2

Tennessee Greene 0.4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C65

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Tennessee Grundy 173.4

Tennessee Hardin 3.1

Tennessee Hawkins 2.3

Tennessee Haywood 0.6

Tennessee Henderson 0.0

Tennessee Hickman 0.1

Tennessee Johnson 12.2

Tennessee Knox 7.5

Tennessee Lake 1.2

Tennessee Lawrence 0.6

Tennessee Lincoln 10.3

Tennessee Loudon 0.6

Tennessee McMinn 0.7

Tennessee McNairy 0.2

Tennessee Madison 0.9

Tennessee Marion 0.1

Tennessee Marshall 13.2

Tennessee Meigs 0.1

Tennessee Moore 0.1

Tennessee Overton 0.2

Tennessee Putnam 0.5

Tennessee Rhea 0.0

Tennessee Robertson 5.3

Tennessee Rutherford 0.1

Tennessee Sequatchie 12.3

Tennessee Sevier 1.1

Tennessee Sullivan 0.6

Tennessee Sumner 20.3

Tennessee Van Buren 14.3

Tennessee Warren 1243.0

Tennessee Weakley 0.3

Tennessee White 1.4

Tennessee Williamson 10.7

Texas Anderson 30.6

Texas Atascosa 3.4

Texas Austin 12.3

Texas Bailey 0.4

Texas Bastrop 1.7

Texas Bexar 143.0

Texas Blanco 1.1

Texas Borden 0.0

Texas Bosque 29.1

Texas Bowie 3.7

Texas Brazoria 31.3

Texas Brazos 2.5

Texas Brown 27.6
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C66

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Texas Burleson 0.6

Texas Burnet 4.1

Texas Caldwell 1.8

Texas Callahan 0.2

Texas Cameron 51.6

Texas Cass 2.6

Texas Cherokee 86.9

Texas Collin 8.3

Texas Colorado 24.5

Texas Comal 0.0

Texas Comanche 0.5

Texas Dallam 0.8

Texas Dallas 8.0

Texas Dawson 0.1

Texas Delta 0.6

Texas Denton 18.7

Texas Dimmit 1.1

Texas Eastland 0.9

Texas Ector 0.0

Texas Ellis 6.1

Texas Erath 58.9

Texas Falls 0.8

Texas Fannin 25.0

Texas Fayette 1.7

Texas Fort Bend 197.9

Texas Franklin 0.0

Texas Frio 18.8

Texas Galveston 7.3

Texas Gillespie 0.3

Texas Gonzales 6.5

Texas Grayson 14.7

Texas Grimes 11.1

Texas Guadalupe 25.6

Texas Hamilton 0.0

Texas Harris 57.5

Texas Hartley 1.0

Texas Hays 1.3

Texas Henderson 41.8

Texas Hidalgo 14.6

Texas Hopkins 0.1

Texas Houston 1.2

Texas Hunt 8.0

Texas Jack 0.1

Texas Jackson 0.2

Texas Jasper 1.8

Texas Jeff Davis 5.1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C67

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Texas Jim Wells 0.3

Texas Johnson 0.6

Texas Kaufman 1.5

Texas Kendall 0.0

Texas Kerr 1.1

Texas Lamar 0.2

Texas Lamb 9.0

Texas Lavaca 1.1

Texas Lee 8.9

Texas Leon 7.5

Texas Liberty 0.7

Texas Limestone 6.9

Texas Live Oak 1.7

Texas Lubbock 3.7

Texas McLennan 10.6

Texas Marion 0.2

Texas Martin 0.6

Texas Matagorda 8.7

Texas Midland 3.1

Texas Montgomery 76.3

Texas Nueces 17.9

Texas Orange 2.5

Texas Palo Pinto 1.8

Texas Parker 14.0

Texas Polk 10.5

Texas Potter 1.2

Texas Rains 0.2

Texas Randall 0.6

Texas Red River 0.4

Texas Rockwall 2.7

Texas Runnels 0.6

Texas Rusk 27.0

Texas Sabine 0.0

Texas San Jacinto 2.4

Texas Smith 121.9

Texas Swisher 3.3

Texas Tarrant 12.1

Texas Taylor 0.3

Texas Tom Green 1.6

Texas Travis 6.3

Texas Tyler 15.9

Texas Uvalde 1.7

Texas Val Verde 1.0

Texas Van Zandt 252.8

Texas Walker 44.5

Texas Waller 88.3
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C68

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Texas Washington 10.8

Texas Webb 0.3

Texas Wharton 247.2

Texas Wichita 0.3

Texas Willacy 0.6

Texas Williamson 2.2

Texas Wilson 1.1

Texas Wise 0.4

Texas Wood 41.4

Texas Zavala 0.7

Utah Davis 8.2

Utah Salt Lake 1.0

Utah Utah 1.6

Utah Weber 2.2

Vermont Lamoille 0.2

Vermont Windsor 2.0

Virginia Accomack 41.0

Virginia Amelia 2.7

Virginia Augusta 24.5

Virginia Bedford 2.2

Virginia Campbell 2.1

Virginia Caroline 1.3

Virginia Charlotte 0.2

Virginia Clarke 3.6

Virginia Culpeper 12.1

Virginia Essex 7.3

Virginia Floyd 34.0

Virginia Fluvanna 3.3

Virginia Franklin 0.3

Virginia Frederick 0.0

Virginia Gloucester 11.3

Virginia Halifax 29.3

Virginia Hanover 11.1

Virginia Henrico 0.6

Virginia Isle of Wight 24.7

Virginia King William 0.5

Virginia Loudoun 7.5

Virginia Mathews 7.4

Virginia Mecklenburg 2.4

Virginia Nelson 36.1

Virginia New Kent 1.5

Virginia Northampton 106.0

Virginia Orange 13.1

Virginia Patrick 1.0

Virginia Pittsylvania 1.1

Virginia Prince Edward 3.5
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C69

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Virginia Rappahannock 0.7

Virginia Richmond 22.9

Virginia Roanoke 1.2

Virginia Rockbridge 0.4

Virginia Rockingham 5.1

Virginia Shenandoah 0.1

Virginia Smyth 0.0

Virginia Southampton 0.4

Virginia Surry 0.4

Virginia Sussex 0.1

Virginia Washington 0.4

Virginia Westmoreland 80.5

Virginia Chesapeake City 36.3

Virginia Suffolk City 56.8

Virginia Virginia Beach City 3.2

Washington Adams 2.2

Washington Benton 5.6

Washington Clark 0.0

Washington Franklin 12.1

Washington Grant 54.2

Washington Grays Harbor 39.1

Washington King 9.6

Washington Klickitat 0.5

Washington Lewis 63.4

Washington Pierce 3.2

Washington Skagit 32.3

Washington Snohomish 14.5

Washington Spokane 6.7

Washington Stevens 56.3

Washington Thurston 19.2

Washington Walla Walla 1.2

Washington Whatcom 14.5

Washington Yakima 37.2

West Virginia Fayette 1.8

West Virginia Greenbrier 0.5

West Virginia Jefferson 1.6

West Virginia Putnam 0.2

West Virginia Taylor 0.5

West Virginia Wirt 1.3

Wisconsin Adams 0.9

Wisconsin Bayfield 0.1

Wisconsin Brown 5.1

Wisconsin Calumet 0.8

Wisconsin Chippewa 0.1

Wisconsin Columbia 0.1

Wisconsin Dane 10.6
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C70

Data for Figure 17. Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Wisconsin Dodge 0.1

Wisconsin Door 12.0

Wisconsin Eau Claire 6.6

Wisconsin Fond Du Lac 12.5

Wisconsin Green Lake 5.1

Wisconsin Jackson 42.1

Wisconsin Kenosha 98.0

Wisconsin Kewaunee 5.5

Wisconsin Lincoln 5.1

Wisconsin Manitowoc 0.3

Wisconsin Marathon 0.1

Wisconsin Milwaukee 0.1

Wisconsin Monroe 0.4

Wisconsin Oneida 0.0

Wisconsin Outagamie 1.9

Wisconsin Pierce 0.2

Wisconsin Polk 0.9

Wisconsin Portage 3.6

Wisconsin Racine 0.6

Wisconsin Rock 26.6

Wisconsin St. Croix 2.0

Wisconsin Shawano 0.0

Wisconsin Walworth 8.1

Wisconsin Washington 7.5

Wisconsin Waukesha 30.1

Wisconsin Waupaca 1.2

Wisconsin Waushara 1.3

Wisconsin Winnebago 1.2

Wisconsin Wood 6.1

Wyoming Natrona 3.2

Wyoming Platte 0.0

Wyoming Teton 0.2
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C71

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Alabama Autauga 5.9

Alabama Baldwin 9.2

Alabama Calhoun 1.7

Alabama Chilton 0.2

Alabama Cleburne 0.4

Alabama Dallas 0.1

Alabama Elmore 0.7

Alabama Geneva 1.4

Alabama Greene 0.9

Alabama Limestone 1.2

Alabama Madison 0.9

Alabama Mobile 18.4

Alabama Montgomery 1.7

Alabama Shelby 2.6

Arizona Maricopa 12.0

Arizona Pima 0.3

Arizona Yavapai 0.7

Arkansas Columbia 1.7

Arkansas Poinsett 0.6

California Alameda 1.4

California Contra Costa 0.2

California Fresno 3.8

California Imperial 0.4

California Kern 34.2

California Los Angeles 5.6

California Madera 3.4

California Merced 2.4

California Monterey 7.7

California Orange 12.3

California Riverside 31.9

California Sacramento 2.1

California San Bernardino 0.4

California San Diego 28.4

California San Joaquin 11.0

California San Luis Obispo 12.6

California San Mateo 3.8

California Santa Barbara 0.2

California Santa Clara 2.7

California Santa Cruz 2.3

California Solano 8.2

California Sonoma 0.0

California Stanislaus 18.5

California Tehama 0.6

California Tulare 45.8

California Ventura 30.4

Colorado Adams 8.2
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C72

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Colorado Arapahoe 1.1

Colorado Boulder 0.1

Colorado Douglas 1.7

Colorado El Paso 0.0

Colorado Jefferson 0.2

Colorado Larimer 5.7

Colorado Lincoln 0.1

Colorado Logan 0.0

Colorado Prowers 0.0

Colorado Pueblo 0.6

Colorado Washington 2.5

Colorado Weld 7.8

Connecticut Fairfield 0.4

Connecticut Hartford 10.2

Connecticut Litchfield 0.7

Connecticut Middlesex 7.7

Connecticut New London 7.2

Connecticut Tolland 1.0

Connecticut Windham 0.4

Delaware Sussex 1.0

Florida Alachua 14.6

Florida Baker 0.1

Florida Brevard 3.7

Florida Broward 4.4

Florida Calhoun 0.8

Florida Charlotte 0.7

Florida Citrus 1.6

Florida Clay 4.1

Florida Collier 4.7

Florida Columbia 0.8

Florida De Soto 2.9

Florida Duval 0.6

Florida Escambia 0.3

Florida Gadsden 17.0

Florida Gilchrist 0.7

Florida Glades 2.3

Florida Hamilton 2.4

Florida Hardee 8.4

Florida Hendry 5.6

Florida Hernando 6.5

Florida Highlands 6.0

Florida Hillsborough 20.0

Florida Indian River 7.5

Florida Jefferson 6.4

Florida Lafayette 0.9

Florida Lake 37.4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C73

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Florida Lee 34.8

Florida Leon 0.8

Florida Levy 10.7

Florida Madison 3.1

Florida Manatee 12.7

Florida Marion 6.7

Florida Martin 13.9

Florida Miami-Dade 312.8

Florida Okeechobee 2.4

Florida Orange 25.5

Florida Osceola 1.0

Florida Palm Beach 67.4

Florida Pasco 2.1

Florida Pinellas 0.1

Florida Polk 11.3

Florida Putnam 0.9

Florida St. Johns 0.6

Florida St. Lucie 16.6

Florida Santa Rosa 2.7

Florida Sarasota 1.9

Florida Seminole 0.7

Florida Sumter 11.2

Florida Suwannee 2.4

Florida Taylor 0.2

Florida Volusia 6.8

Georgia Baker 0.2

Georgia Carroll 0.0

Georgia Catoosa 0.2

Georgia Chatham 0.3

Georgia Cherokee 0.6

Georgia Clarke 0.6

Georgia Colquitt 2.7

Georgia Crawford 0.9

Georgia Dawson 0.0

Georgia Decatur 1.0

Georgia Emanuel 1.1

Georgia Evans 0.6

Georgia Fayette 0.4

Georgia Forsyth 0.3

Georgia Fulton 0.7

Georgia Grady 17.6

Georgia Hancock 0.3

Georgia Harris 0.2

Georgia Hart 0.6

Georgia Henry 1.6

Georgia Jasper 0.5
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C74

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Georgia Lamar 3.1

Georgia Lowndes 0.4

Georgia McDuffie 13.5

Georgia Marion 0.1

Georgia Meriwether 2.4

Georgia Morgan 0.6

Georgia Murray 0.1

Georgia Oconee 10.7

Georgia Oglethorpe 3.1

Georgia Paulding 0.5

Georgia Peach 1.7

Georgia Pike 2.4

Georgia Rabun 0.0

Georgia Stewart 0.1

Georgia Tattnall 0.4

Georgia Thomas 5.6

Georgia Toombs 0.9

Georgia Towns 0.0

Georgia Walton 2.1

Georgia Wayne 0.1

Georgia Webster 0.1

Georgia Wilkes 0.6

Georgia Worth 0.1

Hawaii Hawaii 12.7

Hawaii Honolulu 0.7

Hawaii Kauai 1.8

Hawaii Maui & Kalwao 0.1

Idaho Gem 2.4

Idaho Minidoka 2.0

Illinois Boone 8.0

Illinois Champaign 3.9

Illinois Clinton 5.4

Illinois Cook 0.0

Illinois De Kalb 0.7

Illinois Fayette 0.3

Illinois Grundy 0.9

Illinois Iroquois 1.3

Illinois Kane 8.5

Illinois Kankakee 8.9

Illinois Kendall 2.3

Illinois Lake 1.6

Illinois La Salle 0.2

Illinois McHenry 13.8

Illinois McLean 0.4

Illinois Ogle 0.1

Illinois Peoria 1.4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C75

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Illinois Rock Island 0.3

Illinois Tazewell 0.7

Illinois Will 1.0

Illinois Winnebago 0.3

Illinois Woodford 0.2

Indiana Hamilton 1.0

Indiana Hendricks 1.1

Indiana Wayne 0.4

Iowa Floyd 1.2

Iowa Johnson 1.4

Iowa Pottawattamie 4.3

Iowa Shelby 0.8

Iowa Sioux 0.3

Iowa Winnebago 0.0

Kansas Douglas 0.5

Kansas Franklin 1.9

Kansas Johnson 4.3

Kansas Miami 0.9

Kansas Shawnee 0.2

Kentucky Calloway 1.7

Kentucky Hardin 0.7

Kentucky Nelson 0.1

Kentucky Warren 0.1

Louisiana Lafayette 0.4

Louisiana Plaquemines 3.5

Louisiana Rapides 10.6

Louisiana Saint Landry 0.7

Louisiana Tangipahoa 3.2

Louisiana Washington 5.5

Maryland Baltimore 1.5

Maryland Caroline 0.3

Maryland Cecil 18.3

Maryland Frederick 3.2

Maryland Howard 3.3

Maryland Queen Anne's 6.1

Maryland Wicomico 1.1

Massachusetts Middlesex 5.1

Massachusetts Plymouth 0.2

Michigan Allegan 8.6

Michigan Berrien 0.6

Michigan Eaton 0.0

Michigan Huron 0.2

Michigan Macomb 0.5

Michigan Ottawa 27.6

Michigan Van Buren 3.9

Minnesota Carver 2.5
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C76

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Minnesota Dakota 15.4

Minnesota Ramsey 1.5

Minnesota Rice 0.8

Minnesota Stearns 0.7

Minnesota Washington 10.3

Minnesota Wright 1.0

Mississippi Attala 0.1

Mississippi Benton 0.0

Mississippi George 3.4

Mississippi Jackson 0.1

Mississippi Pontotoc 1.1

Mississippi Stone 3.5

Mississippi Tippah 0.9

Missouri Atchison 0.1

Missouri Cass 2.2

Missouri Clay 0.3

Missouri Grundy 0.1

Missouri Harrison 0.2

Missouri Jackson 4.9

Missouri Lincoln 1.5

Missouri Linn 0.4

Missouri St. Charles 0.2

Missouri St. Louis 0.6

Montana Cascade 0.0

Montana Ravalli 0.5

Nebraska Box Butte 0.1

Nebraska Burt 0.0

Nebraska Douglas 0.1

Nebraska Keith 0.3

Nebraska Lancaster 0.8

Nebraska Madison 0.0

Nebraska Sarpy 0.2

Nebraska Saunders 1.8

Nebraska Thayer 0.3

New Hampshire Rockingham 0.8

New Jersey Atlantic 0.3

New Jersey Burlington 1.7

New Jersey Cape May 1.3

New Jersey Cumberland 22.0

New Jersey Gloucester 0.0

New Jersey Mercer 0.4

New Jersey Monmouth 2.9

New Jersey Salem 0.8

New Mexico Dona Ana 1.5

New York Cattaraugus 3.8

New York Erie 4.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C77

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

New York Suffolk 7.7

New York Tompkins 0.5

North Carolina Avery 0.0

North Carolina Brunswick 0.0

North Carolina Burke 14.7

North Carolina Cabarrus 1.4

North Carolina Caldwell 1.5

North Carolina Catawba 1.5

North Carolina Cherokee 0.0

North Carolina Chowan 0.2

North Carolina Duplin 0.1

North Carolina Edgecombe 5.3

North Carolina Franklin 6.9

North Carolina Greene 0.0

North Carolina Guilford 2.5

North Carolina Halifax 0.6

North Carolina Harnett 11.5

North Carolina Lenoir 5.4

North Carolina McDowell 10.1

North Carolina Martin 0.1

North Carolina Mecklenburg 7.7

North Carolina Nash 0.2

North Carolina Northampton 0.0

North Carolina Pender 1.9

North Carolina Pitt 1.5

North Carolina Randolph 2.8

North Carolina Robeson 1.1

North Carolina Rockingham 1.4

North Carolina Stanly 0.4

North Carolina Wake 3.0

North Carolina Warren 0.1

North Carolina Wilson 15.1

North Dakota Burleigh 0.2

North Dakota La Moure 0.4

North Dakota Nelson 0.8

Ohio Ashtabula 0.1

Ohio Clark 11.2

Ohio Crawford 0.2

Ohio Delaware 0.1

Ohio Erie 10.5

Ohio Lake 16.6

Ohio Lorain 9.3

Ohio Medina 0.7

Ohio Miami 0.2

Ohio Muskingum 0.3

Ohio Pickaway 1.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C78

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Ohio Wood 1.5

Oklahoma Canadian 0.1

Oklahoma Cherokee 32.2

Oklahoma Cleveland 1.3

Oklahoma Garvin 1.1

Oklahoma Grady 0.1

Oklahoma Murray 0.7

Oklahoma Muskogee 2.6

Oklahoma Pontotoc 0.3

Oklahoma Rogers 1.0

Oklahoma Wagoner 1.1

Oregon Clackamas 45.5

Oregon Douglas 0.2

Oregon Jefferson 0.2

Oregon Lane 3.4

Oregon Marion 80.0

Oregon Multnomah 16.1

Oregon Polk 3.6

Oregon Umatilla 3.4

Oregon Washington 60.6

Oregon Yamhill 62.2

Pennsylvania Bucks 2.4

Pennsylvania Chester 5.4

Pennsylvania Lancaster 1.5

Pennsylvania Montgomery 0.6

Pennsylvania Schuylkill 4.4

South Carolina Abbeville 4.3

South Carolina Aiken 0.2

South Carolina Anderson 1.7

South Carolina Bamberg 2.2

South Carolina Barnwell 0.6

South Carolina Berkeley 10.0

South Carolina Calhoun 1.6

South Carolina Charleston 3.2

South Carolina Clarendon 0.2

South Carolina Colleton 1.7

South Carolina Darlington 0.0

South Carolina Dorchester 0.2

South Carolina Edgefield 7.2

South Carolina Fairfield 0.9

South Carolina Florence 0.2

South Carolina Georgetown 7.0

South Carolina Greenville 0.1

South Carolina Jasper 0.2

South Carolina Lexington 0.5

South Carolina Oconee 0.3
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C79

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

South Carolina Orangeburg 8.9

South Carolina Richland 0.2

South Carolina Spartanburg 0.9

South Carolina Sumter 0.4

South Carolina Williamsburg 1.0

South Carolina York 5.8

South Dakota Jackson 0.2

Tennessee Cannon 2.5

Tennessee Chester 0.0

Tennessee Coffee 7.0

Tennessee De Kalb 22.1

Tennessee Franklin 11.7

Tennessee Grundy 0.2

Tennessee Haywood 0.0

Tennessee Henderson 0.0

Tennessee Johnson 1.6

Tennessee Lincoln 0.5

Tennessee Marshall 1.4

Tennessee Robertson 0.1

Tennessee Sumner 1.6

Tennessee Warren 31.7

Tennessee White 0.3

Texas Anderson 2.4

Texas Austin 0.2

Texas Bastrop 0.3

Texas Bexar 1.8

Texas Bowie 0.4

Texas Brazoria 1.3

Texas Brazos 0.3

Texas Brown 3.9

Texas Cameron 1.9

Texas Cass 0.2

Texas Cherokee 0.9

Texas Collin 0.3

Texas Colorado 2.1

Texas Dallam 0.1

Texas Dallas 0.3

Texas Denton 0.2

Texas Eastland 0.2

Texas Ellis 0.9

Texas Erath 2.6

Texas Falls 0.0

Texas Fannin 3.1

Texas Fayette 0.4

Texas Fort Bend 7.8

Texas Frio 0.8
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C80

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Texas Grayson 4.1

Texas Grimes 0.1

Texas Harris 1.6

Texas Henderson 3.8

Texas Hidalgo 0.6

Texas Hunt 1.4

Texas Jasper 0.5

Texas Kerr 0.1

Texas Leon 2.6

Texas Limestone 0.4

Texas McLennan 0.1

Texas Matagorda 0.3

Texas Montgomery 0.6

Texas Nueces 2.0

Texas Potter 0.2

Texas Rockwall 0.3

Texas Rusk 2.5

Texas Smith 8.9

Texas Tarrant 1.1

Texas Tom Green 0.2

Texas Uvalde 0.3

Texas Van Zandt 16.0

Texas Walker 1.4

Texas Waller 10.3

Texas Washington 0.3

Texas Wharton 21.5

Texas Williamson 0.1

Texas Wood 2.0

Utah Davis 1.0

Utah Salt Lake 0.1

Utah Utah 0.5

Virginia Accomack 3.6

Virginia Floyd 0.9

Virginia Gloucester 1.0

Virginia Hanover 0.5

Virginia Isle of Wight 3.3

Virginia Mathews 0.7

Virginia Nelson 3.9

Virginia Northampton 12.4

Virginia Richmond 0.1

Virginia Chesapeake City 3.2

Virginia Suffolk City 6.6

Virginia Virginia Beach City 0.2

Washington Benton 1.1

Washington Franklin 3.8

Washington Grant 4.2
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C81

Data for Figure 18. Liability 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Washington Grays Harbor 3.8

Washington King 0.8

Washington Lewis 0.9

Washington Skagit 2.7

Washington Stevens 5.9

Washington Yakima 11.0

Wisconsin Adams 0.4

Wisconsin Door 1.4

Wisconsin Eau Claire 0.0

Wisconsin Fond Du Lac 0.8

Wisconsin Jackson 3.6

Wisconsin Kenosha 9.0

Wisconsin Outagamie 0.2

Wisconsin Pierce 0.0

Wisconsin Rock 0.1

Wisconsin Walworth 0.7

Wisconsin Waukesha 0.3

Wyoming Natrona 0.2

Wyoming Platte 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C82

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Alabama Autauga 0.3

Alabama Baldwin 0.0

Alabama Bullock 0.0

Alabama Calhoun 0.0

Alabama Chambers 0.0

Alabama Cherokee 0.0

Alabama Chilton 0.0

Alabama Cleburne 0.0

Alabama Coffee 0.0

Alabama Cullman 1.7

Alabama Dale 0.0

Alabama Dallas 0.0

Alabama Elmore 0.0

Alabama Escambia 0.0

Alabama Etowah 0.0

Alabama Franklin 0.0

Alabama Geneva 0.0

Alabama Greene 0.0

Alabama Lauderdale 0.1

Alabama Lee 0.0

Alabama Limestone 0.2

Alabama Macon 0.0

Alabama Madison 0.7

Alabama Marshall 0.0

Alabama Mobile 1.0

Alabama Montgomery 0.0

Alabama Morgan 0.0

Alabama Pickens 0.0

Alabama Pike 0.0

Alabama Randolph 0.0

Alabama Russell 0.0

Alabama Saint Clair 0.0

Alabama Shelby 0.0

Alabama Talladega 0.0

Alabama Tuscaloosa 0.0

Alabama Washington 0.0

Arizona Maricopa 0.0

Arizona Mohave 0.0

Arizona Pima 0.0

Arizona Pinal 0.0

Arizona Yavapai 0.0

Arizona Yuma 0.0

Arkansas Arkansas 0.0

Arkansas Benton 0.0

Arkansas Clay 0.0

Arkansas Columbia 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C83

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Arkansas Crawford 0.0

Arkansas Faulkner 0.0

Arkansas Independence 0.0

Arkansas Little River 0.0

Arkansas Madison 0.0

Arkansas Monroe 0.0

Arkansas Montgomery 0.0

Arkansas Nevada 0.0

Arkansas Newton 0.0

Arkansas Poinsett 0.0

Arkansas Pulaski 0.0

Arkansas Van Buren 0.0

Arkansas White 0.1

California Alameda 0.0

California Butte 0.1

California Colusa 0.0

California Contra Costa 0.0

California Eldorado 0.0

California Fresno 0.0

California Glenn 0.0

California Humboldt 0.0

California Imperial 0.0

California Kern 0.0

California Kings 0.0

California Lassen 0.0

California Los Angeles 0.0

California Madera 0.0

California Mendocino 0.0

California Merced 0.0

California Monterey 0.1

California Napa 0.0

California Nevada 0.0

California Orange 0.0

California Placer 0.0

California Riverside 0.0

California Sacramento 0.0

California San Benito 0.0

California San Bernardino 0.0

California San Diego 0.6

California San Joaquin 0.2

California San Luis Obispo 0.0

California San Mateo 0.0

California Santa Barbara 0.0

California Santa Clara 0.0

California Santa Cruz 0.0

California Shasta 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C84

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

California Siskiyou 0.3

California Solano 0.0

California Sonoma 0.0

California Stanislaus 0.0

California Sutter 0.0

California Tehama 0.0

California Tulare 0.0

California Ventura 0.0

California Yolo 0.0

California Yuba 0.0

Colorado Adams 0.7

Colorado Arapahoe 0.0

Colorado Boulder 0.0

Colorado Broomfield 0.0

Colorado Denver 0.0

Colorado Douglas 0.2

Colorado Elbert 0.0

Colorado El Paso 0.0

Colorado Fremont 0.0

Colorado Garfield 0.0

Colorado Gunnison 0.0

Colorado Jefferson 0.3

Colorado Larimer 0.9

Colorado Lincoln 0.0

Colorado Logan 0.0

Colorado Mesa 0.0

Colorado Montezuma 0.0

Colorado Otero 0.0

Colorado Prowers 0.0

Colorado Pueblo 0.3

Colorado Routt 0.0

Colorado Washington 0.0

Colorado Weld 9.6

Connecticut Fairfield 0.0

Connecticut Hartford 0.0

Connecticut Litchfield 0.0

Connecticut Middlesex 0.0

Connecticut New Haven 0.0

Connecticut New London 0.0

Connecticut Tolland 0.0

Connecticut Windham 0.0

Delaware Kent 0.0

Delaware New Castle 0.0

Delaware Sussex 0.0

Florida Alachua 0.1

Florida Baker 4.8
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C85

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Florida Brevard 2.6

Florida Broward 8.9

Florida Calhoun 0.0

Florida Charlotte 0.2

Florida Citrus 0.1

Florida Clay 0.1

Florida Collier 0.4

Florida Columbia 0.0

Florida Dade 66.7

Florida De Soto 1.8

Florida Dixie 0.1

Florida Duval 0.1

Florida Escambia 0.0

Florida Flagler 0.0

Florida Gadsden 0.2

Florida Gilchrist 0.0

Florida Glades 4.7

Florida Hamilton 0.0

Florida Hardee 4.7

Florida Hendry 4.3

Florida Hernando 0.0

Florida Highlands 3.7

Florida Hillsborough 0.5

Florida Indian River 0.7

Florida Jackson 0.0

Florida Jefferson 0.0

Florida Lafayette 0.0

Florida Lake 3.2

Florida Lee 14.5

Florida Leon 0.0

Florida Levy 0.4

Florida Liberty 0.0

Florida Madison 0.0

Florida Manatee 3.3

Florida Marion 0.8

Florida Martin 12.2

Florida Miami-Dade 328.7

Florida Monroe 0.4

Florida Okaloosa 0.0

Florida Okeechobee 11.1

Florida Orange 5.0

Florida Osceola 0.5

Florida Palm Beach 117.0

Florida Pasco 0.0

Florida Pinellas 0.0

Florida Polk 1.7
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C86

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Florida Putnam 0.4

Florida St. Johns 0.1

Florida St. Lucie 8.4

Florida Santa Rosa 0.8

Florida Sarasota 0.0

Florida Seminole 12.7

Florida Sumter 0.0

Florida Suwannee 0.0

Florida Taylor 0.0

Florida Volusia 1.6

Florida Wakulla 0.0

Florida Walton 0.0

Georgia Bacon 0.0

Georgia Baker 0.0

Georgia Baldwin 0.0

Georgia Banks 0.0

Georgia Bartow 0.0

Georgia Berrien 0.0

Georgia Brooks 0.0

Georgia Bulloch 0.0

Georgia Camden 0.0

Georgia Carroll 0.0

Georgia Catoosa 0.0

Georgia Charlton 0.0

Georgia Chatham 0.0

Georgia Cherokee 0.0

Georgia Clarke 0.0

Georgia Clay 0.0

Georgia Clinch 0.0

Georgia Cobb 0.0

Georgia Coffee 0.0

Georgia Colquitt 0.0

Georgia Cook 0.0

Georgia Coweta 0.0

Georgia Crawford 0.0

Georgia Dawson 0.0

Georgia Decatur 0.0

Georgia Dooly 0.0

Georgia Douglas 0.0

Georgia Effingham 0.0

Georgia Emanuel 0.0

Georgia Evans 0.0

Georgia Fannin 0.0

Georgia Fayette 0.0

Georgia Floyd 0.0

Georgia Forsyth 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C87

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Georgia Fulton 0.0

Georgia Gordon 0.0

Georgia Grady 0.0

Georgia Greene 0.0

Georgia Gwinnett 0.0

Georgia Hancock 0.0

Georgia Haralson 0.0

Georgia Harris 0.0

Georgia Hart 0.0

Georgia Henry 0.0

Georgia Houston 0.0

Georgia Jasper 0.0

Georgia Jeff Davis 0.0

Georgia Johnson 0.5

Georgia Lamar 0.0

Georgia Lowndes 0.0

Georgia Lumpkin 0.0

Georgia McDuffie 0.0

Georgia Marion 0.0

Georgia Meriwether 0.0

Georgia Mitchell 0.0

Georgia Monroe 0.0

Georgia Morgan 0.0

Georgia Murray 0.0

Georgia Newton 0.0

Georgia Oconee 0.0

Georgia Oglethorpe 0.0

Georgia Paulding 0.0

Georgia Peach 0.0

Georgia Pierce 0.0

Georgia Pike 0.0

Georgia Quitman 0.0

Georgia Rabun 0.0

Georgia Randolph 0.0

Georgia Rockdale 0.0

Georgia Spalding 0.0

Georgia Stewart 0.0

Georgia Tattnall 0.0

Georgia Thomas 0.0

Georgia Tift 0.0

Georgia Toombs 0.0

Georgia Towns 0.0

Georgia Turner 0.0

Georgia Union 0.0

Georgia Walker 0.0

Georgia Walton 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C88

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Georgia Washington 0.0

Georgia Wayne 0.0

Georgia Webster 0.0

Georgia Wheeler 0.0

Georgia Wilkes 0.0

Georgia Worth 0.0

Hawaii Hawaii 0.4

Hawaii Honolulu 0.1

Hawaii Kauai 0.0

Hawaii Maui & Kalwao 0.0

Idaho Ada 0.0

Idaho Bingham 0.0

Idaho Bonneville 0.0

Idaho Boundary 0.0

Idaho Canyon 0.0

Idaho Gem 0.0

Idaho Gooding 0.0

Idaho Jefferson 0.0

Idaho Kootenai 0.0

Idaho Madison 0.0

Idaho Minidoka 0.0

Idaho Teton 0.0

Illinois Adams 0.0

Illinois Boone 0.0

Illinois Bureau 0.0

Illinois Carroll 0.0

Illinois Champaign 0.0

Illinois Christian 0.0

Illinois Clinton 0.0

Illinois Cook 0.0

Illinois Cumberland 0.0

Illinois De Kalb 0.0

Illinois Du Page 0.0

Illinois Fayette 0.0

Illinois Grundy 0.0

Illinois Hamilton 0.0

Illinois Hancock 0.0

Illinois Henry 0.0

Illinois Iroquois 0.0

Illinois Jefferson 0.0

Illinois Jersey 0.0

Illinois Kane 0.0

Illinois Kankakee 0.0

Illinois Kendall 0.0

Illinois Lake 0.0

Illinois La Salle 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C89

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Illinois Lee 0.0

Illinois Logan 0.0

Illinois McDonough 0.0

Illinois McHenry 0.0

Illinois McLean 0.0

Illinois Macon 0.0

Illinois Madison 0.0

Illinois Ogle 0.0

Illinois Peoria 0.0

Illinois Perry 0.0

Illinois Pike 0.0

Illinois Putnam 0.0

Illinois Rock Island 0.0

Illinois St. Clair 0.0

Illinois Tazewell 0.0

Illinois Union 0.0

Illinois Vermilion 0.0

Illinois Whiteside 0.0

Illinois Will 0.0

Illinois Winnebago 0.0

Illinois Woodford 0.0

Indiana Allen 0.0

Indiana Carroll 0.0

Indiana Clark 0.0

Indiana De Kalb 0.0

Indiana Hamilton 0.0

Indiana Hancock 0.0

Indiana Hendricks 0.0

Indiana Howard 0.0

Indiana Jasper 0.0

Indiana Johnson 0.0

Indiana Lake 0.0

Indiana Montgomery 0.0

Indiana St. Joseph 0.0

Indiana Tippecanoe 0.0

Indiana Wayne 0.0

Indiana Whitley 0.0

Iowa Boone 0.0

Iowa Cerro Gordo 0.0

Iowa Clay 0.0

Iowa Davis 0.0

Iowa Decatur 0.0

Iowa Floyd 0.0

Iowa Fremont 0.0

Iowa Greene 0.0

Iowa Johnson 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C90

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Iowa Mahaska 0.0

Iowa Marion 0.0

Iowa Marshall 0.0

Iowa Montgomery 0.0

Iowa Page 0.5

Iowa Polk 0.0

Iowa Pottawattamie 0.0

Iowa Shelby 0.0

Iowa Sioux 0.0

Iowa Warren 0.0

Iowa Washington 0.0

Iowa Winnebago 0.0

Iowa Woodbury 0.0

Kansas Butler 0.0

Kansas Douglas 0.0

Kansas Franklin 0.0

Kansas Geary 0.0

Kansas Johnson 0.0

Kansas Linn 0.0

Kansas Miami 0.0

Kansas Neosho 0.0

Kansas Reno 0.0

Kansas Sedgwick 0.0

Kansas Shawnee 0.0

Kansas Trego 0.0

Kansas Wabaunsee 0.0

Kentucky Boone 0.0

Kentucky Bourbon 1.4

Kentucky Calloway 0.7

Kentucky Carter 0.0

Kentucky Daviess 0.0

Kentucky Edmonson 0.0

Kentucky Fayette 0.0

Kentucky Franklin 0.0

Kentucky Graves 0.0

Kentucky Hardin 0.0

Kentucky Henderson 0.0

Kentucky Henry 0.0

Kentucky Jefferson 0.0

Kentucky Jessamine 0.0

Kentucky Lincoln 0.0

Kentucky McCracken 0.0

Kentucky Madison 0.0

Kentucky Nelson 0.0

Kentucky Nicholas 0.0

Kentucky Oldham 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C91

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Kentucky Shelby 0.0

Kentucky Spencer 0.0

Kentucky Warren 0.0

Kentucky Washington 0.0

Louisiana Acadia 0.0

Louisiana Bienville 0.0

Louisiana Bossier 0.0

Louisiana Caddo 0.0

Louisiana Calcasieu 0.0

Louisiana Catahoula 0.0

Louisiana Claiborne 0.0

Louisiana Concordia 0.0

Louisiana Franklin 0.0

Louisiana Iberia 0.0

Louisiana Iberville 0.0

Louisiana Jefferson 0.0

Louisiana Jefferson Davis 0.0

Louisiana Lafayette 0.0

Louisiana Lincoln 0.0

Louisiana Madison 0.0

Louisiana Plaquemines 0.1

Louisiana Rapides 0.1

Louisiana Richland 0.0

Louisiana Sabine 0.0

Louisiana Saint Charles 0.0

Louisiana Saint Landry 0.0

Louisiana Saint Tammany 0.1

Louisiana Tangipahoa 0.5

Louisiana Vermilion 0.0

Louisiana Vernon 0.0

Louisiana Washington 0.1

Louisiana Webster 0.0

Louisiana Winn 0.0

Maine Androscoggin 0.0

Maine Penobscot 0.0

Maryland Anne Arundel 0.0

Maryland Baltimore 0.0

Maryland Caroline 0.0

Maryland Carroll 0.0

Maryland Cecil 0.0

Maryland Dorchester 0.0

Maryland Frederick 0.0

Maryland Harford 0.0

Maryland Howard 0.0

Maryland Kent 0.0

Maryland Montgomery 0.1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C92

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Maryland Prince George's 0.0

Maryland Queen Anne's 0.0

Maryland Somerset 0.0

Maryland Talbot 0.0

Maryland Wicomico 0.0

Maryland Worcester 0.0

Massachusetts Bristol 0.0

Massachusetts Franklin 0.0

Massachusetts Hampden 0.0

Massachusetts Hampshire 0.0

Massachusetts Middlesex 0.0

Massachusetts Plymouth 0.0

Massachusetts Worcester 0.0

Michigan Allegan 0.0

Michigan Antrim 0.0

Michigan Barry 0.0

Michigan Berrien 0.0

Michigan Calhoun 0.0

Michigan Charlevoix 0.0

Michigan Crawford 0.0

Michigan Eaton 0.0

Michigan Genesee 0.0

Michigan Huron 0.0

Michigan Ingham 0.0

Michigan Ionia 0.0

Michigan Jackson 0.0

Michigan Kalamazoo 0.0

Michigan Kent 0.0

Michigan Lapeer 0.0

Michigan Lenawee 0.0

Michigan Livingston 0.0

Michigan Macomb 0.0

Michigan Missaukee 0.0

Michigan Monroe 0.0

Michigan Montcalm 0.0

Michigan Newaygo 0.0

Michigan Oakland 0.0

Michigan Ottawa 0.0

Michigan St. Clair 0.0

Michigan Sanilac 0.0

Michigan Shiawassee 0.0

Michigan Tuscola 0.0

Michigan Van Buren 0.7

Michigan Washtenaw 0.0

Michigan Wayne 0.0

Minnesota Anoka 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C93

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Minnesota Benton 0.0

Minnesota Blue Earth 0.0

Minnesota Carlton 0.0

Minnesota Carver 0.0

Minnesota Chisago 0.0

Minnesota Cottonwood 0.0

Minnesota Dakota 0.0

Minnesota Douglas 0.0

Minnesota Hennepin 0.0

Minnesota Houston 0.0

Minnesota Hubbard 0.0

Minnesota Isanti 0.0

Minnesota Itasca 0.0

Minnesota Jackson 0.0

Minnesota Kanabec 0.0

Minnesota Le Sueur 0.0

Minnesota Lincoln 0.0

Minnesota Lyon 0.0

Minnesota Meeker 0.0

Minnesota Mille Lacs 0.0

Minnesota Pine 0.0

Minnesota Polk 0.0

Minnesota Ramsey 0.0

Minnesota Rice 0.0

Minnesota Scott 0.0

Minnesota Stearns 0.0

Minnesota Washington 0.2

Minnesota Wright 0.0

Mississippi Adams 0.0

Mississippi Attala 0.0

Mississippi Benton 0.0

Mississippi Copiah 0.0

Mississippi Covington 0.0

Mississippi George 0.1

Mississippi Harrison 0.1

Mississippi Hinds 0.0

Mississippi Jackson 0.0

Mississippi Lamar 0.0

Mississippi Madison 0.0

Mississippi Marshall 0.0

Mississippi Oktibbeha 0.0

Mississippi Pontotoc 0.0

Mississippi Stone 0.0

Mississippi Tippah 0.0

Mississippi Walthall 0.0

Mississippi Wayne 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C94

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Mississippi Winston 0.0

Missouri Atchison 0.0

Missouri Bates 0.0

Missouri Boone 0.0

Missouri Cass 0.0

Missouri Clay 0.1

Missouri Cole 0.0

Missouri Crawford 0.0

Missouri Dade 0.0

Missouri Franklin 0.0

Missouri Grundy 0.0

Missouri Harrison 0.0

Missouri Holt 0.0

Missouri Jackson 0.0

Missouri Jasper 0.0

Missouri Jefferson 0.0

Missouri Lafayette 0.0

Missouri Lawrence 0.0

Missouri Lincoln 0.0

Missouri Linn 0.0

Missouri Macon 0.0

Missouri Madison 0.0

Missouri Maries 0.0

Missouri Mississippi 0.0

Missouri Moniteau 0.0

Missouri Montgomery 0.3

Missouri New Madrid 0.0

Missouri Pike 0.0

Missouri St. Charles 0.0

Missouri St. Francois 0.0

Missouri St. Louis 0.0

Missouri Saline 0.0

Missouri Scott 0.0

Missouri Warren 0.0

Missouri Webster 0.0

Missouri St. Louis City 0.0

Montana Beaverhead 0.0

Montana Cascade 0.0

Montana Flathead 0.0

Montana Ravalli 0.0

Montana Sanders 0.0

Nebraska Adams 0.0

Nebraska Box Butte 0.1

Nebraska Burt 0.0

Nebraska Cuming 0.0

Nebraska Dodge 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C95

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Nebraska Douglas 0.4

Nebraska Keith 0.0

Nebraska Lancaster 0.0

Nebraska Lincoln 0.0

Nebraska Madison 0.0

Nebraska Sarpy 0.0

Nebraska Saunders 0.0

Nebraska Scotts Bluff 0.0

Nebraska Thayer 0.0

Nebraska Washington 0.0

Nevada Clark 0.0

Nevada Nye 0.0

New Hampshire Hillsborough 0.0

New Hampshire Merrimack 0.0

New Hampshire Rockingham 0.0

New Hampshire Strafford 0.0

New Jersey Atlantic 0.0

New Jersey Burlington 0.0

New Jersey Camden 0.0

New Jersey Cape May 0.0

New Jersey Cumberland 0.0

New Jersey Gloucester 0.0

New Jersey Hunterdon 0.0

New Jersey Mercer 0.0

New Jersey Middlesex 0.0

New Jersey Monmouth 0.0

New Jersey Morris 0.0

New Jersey Ocean 0.0

New Jersey Salem 0.1

New Jersey Somerset 0.0

New Jersey Sussex 0.0

New Jersey Union 0.0

New Jersey Warren 0.0

New Mexico Curry 0.0

New Mexico Dona Ana 0.0

New Mexico Lea 0.0

New Mexico Mora 0.0

New Mexico Quay 0.0

New York Albany 0.0

New York Cattaraugus 0.0

New York Cayuga 0.0

New York Chautauqua 0.0

New York Dutchess 0.0

New York Erie 0.1

New York Genesee 0.0

New York Monroe 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C96

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

New York Oneida 0.0

New York Onondaga 0.0

New York Ontario 0.0

New York Otsego 0.0

New York Rensselaer 0.0

New York Schenectady 0.0

New York Schoharie 0.0

New York Schuyler 0.0

New York Suffolk 0.0

New York Tioga 0.0

New York Tompkins 0.0

New York Wayne 0.0

New York Westchester 0.0

North Carolina Alamance 0.0

North Carolina Alexander 0.0

North Carolina Anson 0.0

North Carolina Ashe 0.0

North Carolina Avery 0.0

North Carolina Beaufort 0.0

North Carolina Bladen 0.0

North Carolina Brunswick 0.5

North Carolina Buncombe 0.0

North Carolina Burke 2.0

North Carolina Cabarrus 0.0

North Carolina Caldwell 3.6

North Carolina Caswell 0.0

North Carolina Catawba 0.0

North Carolina Chatham 0.0

North Carolina Cherokee 0.0

North Carolina Chowan 0.0

North Carolina Cleveland 0.0

North Carolina Columbus 0.1

North Carolina Craven 0.0

North Carolina Cumberland 0.0

North Carolina Davie 0.0

North Carolina Duplin 0.0

North Carolina Edgecombe 0.0

North Carolina Forsyth 0.0

North Carolina Franklin 0.0

North Carolina Gaston 0.0

North Carolina Granville 0.0

North Carolina Greene 0.0

North Carolina Guilford 0.0

North Carolina Halifax 0.0

North Carolina Harnett 0.0

North Carolina Haywood 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C97

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

North Carolina Henderson 0.0

North Carolina Hyde 0.0

North Carolina Iredell 0.0

North Carolina Jackson 0.0

North Carolina Johnston 0.1

North Carolina Lee 0.0

North Carolina Lenoir 0.0

North Carolina Lincoln 0.0

North Carolina McDowell 1.0

North Carolina Macon 0.0

North Carolina Madison 0.0

North Carolina Martin 0.0

North Carolina Mecklenburg 0.0

North Carolina Mitchell 0.0

North Carolina Montgomery 0.0

North Carolina Moore 0.0

North Carolina Nash 0.0

North Carolina New Hanover 0.0

North Carolina Northampton 0.0

North Carolina Onslow 0.0

North Carolina Orange 0.0

North Carolina Pasquotank 0.0

North Carolina Pender 0.6

North Carolina Pitt 0.0

North Carolina Polk 0.0

North Carolina Randolph 0.0

North Carolina Richmond 0.0

North Carolina Robeson 0.0

North Carolina Rockingham 0.0

North Carolina Rowan 0.0

North Carolina Rutherford 0.0

North Carolina Sampson 0.0

North Carolina Stanly 0.0

North Carolina Stokes 0.0

North Carolina Surry 0.0

North Carolina Transylvania 0.0

North Carolina Union 0.0

North Carolina Vance 0.0

North Carolina Wake 0.0

North Carolina Warren 0.0

North Carolina Watauga 0.0

North Carolina Wayne 0.0

North Carolina Wilkes 0.4

North Carolina Wilson 0.0

North Carolina Yadkin 0.0

North Carolina Yancey 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C98

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

North Dakota Burleigh 0.0

North Dakota Dickey 0.0

North Dakota La Moure 0.0

North Dakota McHenry 0.0

North Dakota Nelson 0.0

North Dakota Sargent 0.0

North Dakota Stark 0.0

North Dakota Ward 0.0

Ohio Ashland 0.0

Ohio Ashtabula 0.1

Ohio Athens 0.0

Ohio Auglaize 0.0

Ohio Brown 0.0

Ohio Carroll 0.0

Ohio Champaign 0.0

Ohio Clark 0.0

Ohio Clermont 0.0

Ohio Coshocton 0.0

Ohio Crawford 0.0

Ohio Cuyahoga 0.0

Ohio Darke 0.0

Ohio Delaware 0.0

Ohio Erie 0.0

Ohio Franklin 0.0

Ohio Greene 0.0

Ohio Hardin 0.0

Ohio Hocking 0.0

Ohio Lake 0.0

Ohio Lorain 0.0

Ohio Lucas 0.0

Ohio Mahoning 0.0

Ohio Medina 0.0

Ohio Meigs 0.0

Ohio Miami 0.0

Ohio Montgomery 0.0

Ohio Muskingum 0.0

Ohio Paulding 0.0

Ohio Pickaway 0.1

Ohio Portage 0.0

Ohio Richland 0.0

Ohio Stark 0.0

Ohio Summit 0.0

Ohio Trumbull 0.0

Ohio Union 0.0

Ohio Warren 0.0

Ohio Wayne 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C99

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Ohio Wood 0.0

Oklahoma Canadian 0.0

Oklahoma Cherokee 0.0

Oklahoma Cleveland 0.1

Oklahoma Comanche 0.0

Oklahoma Garvin 0.0

Oklahoma Grady 0.0

Oklahoma Kingfisher 0.0

Oklahoma McClain 0.0

Oklahoma Mayes 0.0

Oklahoma Murray 0.0

Oklahoma Muskogee 0.0

Oklahoma Oklahoma 0.1

Oklahoma Okmulgee 0.0

Oklahoma Payne 0.0

Oklahoma Pontotoc 0.0

Oklahoma Rogers 0.0

Oklahoma Wagoner 0.0

Oregon Benton 0.0

Oregon Clackamas 0.0

Oregon Columbia 0.0

Oregon Curry 0.0

Oregon Deschutes 0.0

Oregon Douglas 0.0

Oregon Hood River 0.0

Oregon Jefferson 0.0

Oregon Josephine 0.0

Oregon Klamath 0.0

Oregon Lane 0.0

Oregon Lincoln 0.0

Oregon Linn 0.0

Oregon Marion 0.0

Oregon Multnomah 0.0

Oregon Polk 0.0

Oregon Umatilla 0.0

Oregon Washington 0.0

Oregon Yamhill 0.0

Pennsylvania Adams 0.0

Pennsylvania Allegheny 0.0

Pennsylvania Armstrong 0.0

Pennsylvania Berks 0.0

Pennsylvania Bradford 0.0

Pennsylvania Bucks 0.1

Pennsylvania Butler 0.0

Pennsylvania Cambria 0.0

Pennsylvania Carbon 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C100

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Pennsylvania Centre 0.0

Pennsylvania Chester 0.0

Pennsylvania Clearfield 0.0

Pennsylvania Columbia 0.0

Pennsylvania Cumberland 0.0

Pennsylvania Erie 0.0

Pennsylvania Fayette 0.0

Pennsylvania Franklin 0.0

Pennsylvania Indiana 0.0

Pennsylvania Juniata 0.0

Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.0

Pennsylvania Lancaster 0.0

Pennsylvania Lehigh 0.0

Pennsylvania Luzerne 0.0

Pennsylvania Lycoming 0.0

Pennsylvania Mercer 0.0

Pennsylvania Monroe 0.0

Pennsylvania Montgomery 0.0

Pennsylvania Montour 0.0

Pennsylvania Northampton 0.0

Pennsylvania Northumberland 0.0

Pennsylvania Perry 0.0

Pennsylvania Pike 0.0

Pennsylvania Schuylkill 0.0

Pennsylvania Snyder 0.0

Pennsylvania Somerset 0.0

Pennsylvania Tioga 0.0

Pennsylvania Union 0.0

Pennsylvania Wayne 0.0

Pennsylvania Westmoreland 0.0

Pennsylvania York 0.0

Rhode Island Bristol 0.0

Rhode Island Washington 0.0

South Carolina Abbeville 0.0

South Carolina Aiken 0.0

South Carolina Allendale 0.0

South Carolina Anderson 0.0

South Carolina Bamberg 0.0

South Carolina Barnwell 0.0

South Carolina Berkeley 0.0

South Carolina Calhoun 0.0

South Carolina Charleston 0.0

South Carolina Cherokee 0.0

South Carolina Chesterfield 0.0

South Carolina Clarendon 0.1

South Carolina Colleton 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C101

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

South Carolina Darlington 0.0

South Carolina Dorchester 0.0

South Carolina Edgefield 0.0

South Carolina Fairfield 0.0

South Carolina Florence 0.0

South Carolina Georgetown 0.0

South Carolina Greenville 0.0

South Carolina Greenwood 0.0

South Carolina Hampton 0.0

South Carolina Horry 0.0

South Carolina Jasper 0.0

South Carolina Kershaw 0.0

South Carolina Lancaster 0.0

South Carolina Laurens 0.0

South Carolina Lee 0.0

South Carolina Lexington 0.0

South Carolina Marion 0.0

South Carolina Marlboro 0.0

South Carolina Newberry 0.0

South Carolina Oconee 0.0

South Carolina Orangeburg 0.0

South Carolina Pickens 0.0

South Carolina Richland 0.0

South Carolina Spartanburg 0.0

South Carolina Sumter 0.0

South Carolina Williamsburg 0.0

South Carolina York 0.0

South Dakota Bennett 0.0

South Dakota Codington 0.0

South Dakota Jackson 0.0

South Dakota Lake 0.0

South Dakota Pennington 0.9

South Dakota Spink 0.0

South Dakota Yankton 0.0

Tennessee Bedford 0.0

Tennessee Blount 0.1

Tennessee Cannon 5.6

Tennessee Carter 0.0

Tennessee Chester 0.0

Tennessee Coffee 0.0

Tennessee Davidson 0.0

Tennessee De Kalb 12.1

Tennessee Fentress 0.0

Tennessee Franklin 4.1

Tennessee Gibson 0.0

Tennessee Greene 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C102

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Tennessee Grundy 4.4

Tennessee Hardin 0.4

Tennessee Hawkins 0.0

Tennessee Haywood 0.0

Tennessee Henderson 0.0

Tennessee Hickman 0.0

Tennessee Johnson 0.0

Tennessee Knox 0.0

Tennessee Lake 0.3

Tennessee Lawrence 0.0

Tennessee Lincoln 0.1

Tennessee Loudon 0.0

Tennessee McMinn 0.0

Tennessee McNairy 0.0

Tennessee Madison 0.5

Tennessee Marion 0.0

Tennessee Marshall 0.0

Tennessee Meigs 0.0

Tennessee Moore 0.0

Tennessee Overton 0.0

Tennessee Putnam 0.0

Tennessee Rhea 0.0

Tennessee Robertson 0.0

Tennessee Rutherford 0.0

Tennessee Sequatchie 0.0

Tennessee Sevier 0.0

Tennessee Sullivan 0.0

Tennessee Sumner 0.0

Tennessee Van Buren 0.3

Tennessee Warren 28.8

Tennessee Weakley 0.0

Tennessee White 0.0

Tennessee Williamson 0.0

Texas Anderson 0.0

Texas Atascosa 0.0

Texas Austin 0.0

Texas Bailey 0.0

Texas Bastrop 0.0

Texas Bexar 0.0

Texas Blanco 0.0

Texas Borden 0.0

Texas Bosque 0.0

Texas Bowie 0.0

Texas Brazoria 0.0

Texas Brazos 0.0

Texas Brown 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C103

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Texas Burleson 0.0

Texas Burnet 0.0

Texas Caldwell 0.0

Texas Callahan 0.0

Texas Cameron 0.4

Texas Cass 0.0

Texas Cherokee 0.0

Texas Collin 0.0

Texas Colorado 0.0

Texas Comal 0.0

Texas Comanche 0.0

Texas Dallam 0.1

Texas Dallas 0.0

Texas Dawson 0.1

Texas Delta 0.0

Texas Denton 0.0

Texas Dimmit 0.0

Texas Eastland 0.0

Texas Ector 0.0

Texas Ellis 0.0

Texas Erath 6.8

Texas Falls 0.0

Texas Fannin 0.0

Texas Fayette 0.0

Texas Fort Bend 0.1

Texas Franklin 0.0

Texas Frio 0.0

Texas Galveston 0.0

Texas Gillespie 0.0

Texas Gonzales 0.0

Texas Grayson 0.0

Texas Grimes 0.0

Texas Guadalupe 0.0

Texas Hamilton 0.0

Texas Harris 0.0

Texas Hartley 0.1

Texas Hays 0.0

Texas Henderson 0.0

Texas Hidalgo 0.0

Texas Hopkins 0.0

Texas Houston 0.0

Texas Hunt 0.0

Texas Jack 0.0

Texas Jackson 0.0

Texas Jasper 0.0

Texas Jeff Davis 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C104

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Texas Jim Wells 0.0

Texas Johnson 0.0

Texas Kaufman 0.0

Texas Kendall 0.0

Texas Kerr 0.0

Texas Lamar 0.0

Texas Lamb 0.0

Texas Lavaca 0.0

Texas Lee 0.0

Texas Leon 0.0

Texas Liberty 0.0

Texas Limestone 0.0

Texas Live Oak 0.0

Texas Lubbock 0.0

Texas McLennan 0.0

Texas Marion 0.0

Texas Martin 0.0

Texas Matagorda 0.0

Texas Midland 0.1

Texas Montgomery 0.0

Texas Nueces 0.0

Texas Orange 0.0

Texas Palo Pinto 0.0

Texas Parker 0.0

Texas Polk 0.0

Texas Potter 0.0

Texas Rains 0.0

Texas Randall 0.0

Texas Red River 0.0

Texas Rockwall 0.0

Texas Runnels 0.0

Texas Rusk 0.1

Texas Sabine 0.0

Texas San Jacinto 0.0

Texas Smith 0.0

Texas Swisher 0.0

Texas Tarrant 0.0

Texas Taylor 0.0

Texas Tom Green 0.0

Texas Travis 0.0

Texas Tyler 0.0

Texas Uvalde 0.0

Texas Val Verde 0.0

Texas Van Zandt 0.0

Texas Walker 0.2

Texas Waller 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C105

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Texas Washington 0.0

Texas Webb 0.0

Texas Wharton 0.0

Texas Wichita 0.0

Texas Willacy 0.0

Texas Williamson 0.0

Texas Wilson 0.0

Texas Wise 0.0

Texas Wood 0.0

Texas Zavala 0.0

Utah Davis 0.0

Utah Salt Lake 0.0

Utah Utah 0.0

Utah Weber 0.0

Vermont Lamoille 0.0

Vermont Windsor 0.0

Virginia Accomack 0.0

Virginia Amelia 0.0

Virginia Augusta 0.0

Virginia Bedford 0.0

Virginia Campbell 0.0

Virginia Caroline 0.0

Virginia Charlotte 0.0

Virginia Clarke 0.0

Virginia Culpeper 0.0

Virginia Essex 0.0

Virginia Floyd 0.0

Virginia Fluvanna 0.0

Virginia Franklin 0.0

Virginia Frederick 0.0

Virginia Gloucester 0.0

Virginia Halifax 0.0

Virginia Hanover 0.0

Virginia Henrico 0.0

Virginia Isle of Wight 0.0

Virginia King William 0.0

Virginia Loudoun 0.0

Virginia Mathews 0.0

Virginia Mecklenburg 0.0

Virginia Nelson 0.0

Virginia New Kent 0.0

Virginia Northampton 0.0

Virginia Orange 0.0

Virginia Patrick 0.0

Virginia Pittsylvania 0.0

Virginia Prince Edward 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C106

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Virginia Rappahannock 0.0

Virginia Richmond 0.0

Virginia Roanoke 0.0

Virginia Rockbridge 0.0

Virginia Rockingham 0.0

Virginia Shenandoah 0.0

Virginia Smyth 0.0

Virginia Southampton 0.0

Virginia Surry 0.0

Virginia Sussex 0.0

Virginia Washington 0.0

Virginia Westmoreland 0.0

Virginia Chesapeake City 0.0

Virginia Suffolk City 0.0

Virginia Virginia Beach City 0.0

Washington Adams 0.0

Washington Benton 0.0

Washington Clark 0.0

Washington Franklin 0.0

Washington Grant 0.1

Washington Grays Harbor 0.0

Washington King 0.0

Washington Klickitat 0.0

Washington Lewis 0.0

Washington Pierce 0.0

Washington Skagit 0.0

Washington Snohomish 0.1

Washington Spokane 0.0

Washington Stevens 0.0

Washington Thurston 0.0

Washington Walla Walla 0.0

Washington Whatcom 0.0

Washington Yakima 3.2

West Virginia Fayette 0.0

West Virginia Greenbrier 0.0

West Virginia Jefferson 0.0

West Virginia Putnam 0.0

West Virginia Taylor 0.0

West Virginia Wirt 0.0

Wisconsin Adams 0.0

Wisconsin Bayfield 0.0

Wisconsin Brown 0.0

Wisconsin Calumet 0.0

Wisconsin Chippewa 0.0

Wisconsin Columbia 0.0

Wisconsin Dane 0.1
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C107

Data for Figure 19. Indemnities Paid

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Wisconsin Dodge 0.0

Wisconsin Door 0.0

Wisconsin Eau Claire 0.0

Wisconsin Fond Du Lac 0.0

Wisconsin Green Lake 0.0

Wisconsin Jackson 0.0

Wisconsin Kenosha 0.0

Wisconsin Kewaunee 0.0

Wisconsin Lincoln 0.0

Wisconsin Manitowoc 0.0

Wisconsin Marathon 0.0

Wisconsin Milwaukee 0.0

Wisconsin Monroe 0.0

Wisconsin Oneida 0.0

Wisconsin Outagamie 0.0

Wisconsin Pierce 0.0

Wisconsin Polk 0.0

Wisconsin Portage 0.0

Wisconsin Racine 0.0

Wisconsin Rock 0.0

Wisconsin St. Croix 0.0

Wisconsin Shawano 0.0

Wisconsin Walworth 0.0

Wisconsin Washington 0.0

Wisconsin Waukesha 0.0

Wisconsin Waupaca 0.0

Wisconsin Waushara 0.0

Wisconsin Winnebago 0.0

Wisconsin Wood 0.0

Wyoming Natrona 0.0

Wyoming Platte 0.0

Wyoming Teton 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C108

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Alabama Autauga 0.37

Alabama Baldwin 0.04

Alabama Bullock 0.00

Alabama Calhoun 0.20

Alabama Chambers 0.00

Alabama Cherokee 0.00

Alabama Chilton 0.00

Alabama Cleburne 0.00

Alabama Coffee 0.00

Alabama Cullman 5.15

Alabama Dale 0.00

Alabama Dallas 0.00

Alabama Elmore 0.04

Alabama Escambia 0.00

Alabama Etowah 0.00

Alabama Franklin 0.00

Alabama Geneva 0.00

Alabama Greene 0.00

Alabama Lauderdale 13.72

Alabama Lee 0.00

Alabama Limestone 0.23

Alabama Macon 0.00

Alabama Madison 2.77

Alabama Marshall 0.00

Alabama Mobile 0.25

Alabama Montgomery 0.00

Alabama Morgan 0.00

Alabama Pickens 0.00

Alabama Pike 0.00

Alabama Randolph 0.00

Alabama Russell 0.00

Alabama Saint Clair 0.00

Alabama Shelby 0.00

Alabama Talladega 0.00

Alabama Tuscaloosa 0.00

Alabama Washington 0.73

Arizona Maricopa 0.00

Arizona Mohave 0.00

Arizona Pima 0.00

Arizona Pinal 0.46

Arizona Yavapai 0.00

Arizona Yuma 0.00

Arkansas Arkansas 0.00

Arkansas Benton 0.00

Arkansas Clay 0.00

Arkansas Columbia 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C109

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Arkansas Crawford 0.00

Arkansas Faulkner 0.00

Arkansas Independence 0.00

Arkansas Little River 0.00

Arkansas Madison 0.00

Arkansas Monroe 0.00

Arkansas Montgomery 0.00

Arkansas Nevada 0.00

Arkansas Newton 0.00

Arkansas Poinsett 0.00

Arkansas Pulaski 0.00

Arkansas Van Buren 0.00

Arkansas White 15.97

California Alameda 0.00

California Butte 0.71

California Colusa 0.00

California Contra Costa 0.00

California Eldorado 0.00

California Fresno 0.00

California Glenn 0.00

California Humboldt 0.00

California Imperial 0.00

California Kern 0.00

California Kings 0.00

California Lassen 0.00

California Los Angeles 0.00

California Madera 0.00

California Mendocino 0.00

California Merced 0.06

California Monterey 0.07

California Napa 0.00

California Nevada 0.00

California Orange 0.00

California Placer 0.00

California Riverside 0.00

California Sacramento 0.00

California San Benito 0.05

California San Bernardino 0.00

California San Diego 0.10

California San Joaquin 0.09

California San Luis Obispo 0.00

California San Mateo 0.00

California Santa Barbara 0.00

California Santa Clara 0.06

California Santa Cruz 0.00

California Shasta 3.21
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C110

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

California Siskiyou 1.58

California Solano 0.00

California Sonoma 0.00

California Stanislaus 0.00

California Sutter 0.00

California Tehama 0.00

California Tulare 0.00

California Ventura 0.00

California Yolo 0.00

California Yuba 0.00

Colorado Adams 0.47

Colorado Arapahoe 0.00

Colorado Boulder 0.00

Colorado Broomfield 0.00

Colorado Denver 0.00

Colorado Douglas 0.76

Colorado Elbert 0.00

Colorado El Paso 0.00

Colorado Fremont 0.00

Colorado Garfield 0.00

Colorado Gunnison 0.00

Colorado Jefferson 0.50

Colorado Larimer 1.36

Colorado Lincoln 0.00

Colorado Logan 0.00

Colorado Mesa 0.00

Colorado Montezuma 0.00

Colorado Otero 0.00

Colorado Prowers 0.28

Colorado Pueblo 2.97

Colorado Routt 0.00

Colorado Washington 0.02

Colorado Weld 4.26

Connecticut Fairfield 0.00

Connecticut Hartford 0.00

Connecticut Litchfield 0.00

Connecticut Middlesex 0.00

Connecticut New Haven 0.00

Connecticut New London 0.00

Connecticut Tolland 0.00

Connecticut Windham 0.00

Delaware Kent 0.00

Delaware New Castle 0.00

Delaware Sussex 0.00

Florida Alachua 0.04

Florida Baker 3.22
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C111

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Florida Brevard 1.27

Florida Broward 1.15

Florida Calhoun 0.00

Florida Charlotte 0.81

Florida Citrus 0.46

Florida Clay 0.11

Florida Collier 0.11

Florida Columbia 0.00

Florida Dade 2.31

Florida De Soto 1.68

Florida Dixie 14.97

Florida Duval 0.37

Florida Escambia 0.00

Florida Flagler 0.00

Florida Gadsden 0.05

Florida Gilchrist 0.01

Florida Glades 3.91

Florida Hamilton 0.00

Florida Hardee 1.08

Florida Hendry 2.21

Florida Hernando 0.00

Florida Highlands 0.85

Florida Hillsborough 0.05

Florida Indian River 0.46

Florida Jackson 0.12

Florida Jefferson 0.00

Florida Lafayette 0.00

Florida Lake 0.17

Florida Lee 0.93

Florida Leon 0.00

Florida Levy 0.21

Florida Liberty 0.00

Florida Madison 0.04

Florida Manatee 0.57

Florida Marion 0.37

Florida Martin 1.21

Florida Miami-Dade 1.79

Florida Monroe 19.04

Florida Okaloosa 0.00

Florida Okeechobee 4.81

Florida Orange 0.34

Florida Osceola 0.49

Florida Palm Beach 2.29

Florida Pasco 0.01

Florida Pinellas 0.00

Florida Polk 0.38
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C112

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Florida Putnam 0.17

Florida St. Johns 0.09

Florida St. Lucie 1.48

Florida Santa Rosa 1.26

Florida Sarasota 0.00

Florida Seminole 6.08

Florida Sumter 0.00

Florida Suwannee 0.02

Florida Taylor 0.00

Florida Volusia 0.33

Florida Wakulla 0.00

Florida Walton 0.00

Georgia Bacon 0.00

Georgia Baker 0.00

Georgia Baldwin 0.00

Georgia Banks 0.00

Georgia Bartow 0.00

Georgia Berrien 0.00

Georgia Brooks 0.00

Georgia Bulloch 0.00

Georgia Camden 0.00

Georgia Carroll 0.82

Georgia Catoosa 0.00

Georgia Charlton 0.00

Georgia Chatham 0.00

Georgia Cherokee 0.00

Georgia Clarke 0.00

Georgia Clay 0.00

Georgia Clinch 0.00

Georgia Cobb 0.00

Georgia Coffee 0.00

Georgia Colquitt 0.00

Georgia Cook 0.00

Georgia Coweta 0.00

Georgia Crawford 0.00

Georgia Dawson 0.00

Georgia Decatur 0.00

Georgia Dooly 0.00

Georgia Douglas 0.00

Georgia Effingham 0.00

Georgia Emanuel 0.00

Georgia Evans 0.00

Georgia Fannin 0.00

Georgia Fayette 0.00

Georgia Floyd 0.00

Georgia Forsyth 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C113

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Georgia Fulton 0.00

Georgia Gordon 0.00

Georgia Grady 0.00

Georgia Greene 0.00

Georgia Gwinnett 0.00

Georgia Hancock 0.00

Georgia Haralson 2.93

Georgia Harris 0.00

Georgia Hart 0.16

Georgia Henry 0.00

Georgia Houston 0.00

Georgia Jasper 0.00

Georgia Jeff Davis 0.00

Georgia Johnson 3.76

Georgia Lamar 0.00

Georgia Lowndes 0.00

Georgia Lumpkin 0.00

Georgia McDuffie 0.00

Georgia Marion 0.00

Georgia Meriwether 0.00

Georgia Mitchell 0.00

Georgia Monroe 0.00

Georgia Morgan 0.00

Georgia Murray 0.00

Georgia Newton 0.00

Georgia Oconee 0.00

Georgia Oglethorpe 0.00

Georgia Paulding 0.00

Georgia Peach 0.00

Georgia Pierce 0.00

Georgia Pike 0.00

Georgia Quitman 0.00

Georgia Rabun 0.00

Georgia Randolph 0.00

Georgia Rockdale 0.00

Georgia Spalding 0.00

Georgia Stewart 0.00

Georgia Tattnall 0.00

Georgia Thomas 0.00

Georgia Tift 0.00

Georgia Toombs 0.00

Georgia Towns 0.00

Georgia Turner 0.00

Georgia Union 0.00

Georgia Walker 0.00

Georgia Walton 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C114

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Georgia Washington 0.00

Georgia Wayne 0.00

Georgia Webster 0.09

Georgia Wheeler 0.00

Georgia Wilkes 0.00

Georgia Worth 0.00

Hawaii Hawaii 0.23

Hawaii Honolulu 0.30

Hawaii Kauai 0.00

Hawaii Maui & Kalwao 0.00

Idaho Ada 0.00

Idaho Bingham 0.00

Idaho Bonneville 0.00

Idaho Boundary 0.00

Idaho Canyon 0.00

Idaho Gem 0.00

Idaho Gooding 0.00

Idaho Jefferson 0.00

Idaho Kootenai 0.00

Idaho Madison 0.00

Idaho Minidoka 0.00

Idaho Teton 0.00

Illinois Adams 0.00

Illinois Boone 0.00

Illinois Bureau 4.83

Illinois Carroll 0.00

Illinois Champaign 0.00

Illinois Christian 0.00

Illinois Clinton 0.00

Illinois Cook 0.00

Illinois Cumberland 0.00

Illinois De Kalb 0.00

Illinois Du Page 0.00

Illinois Fayette 0.00

Illinois Grundy 0.00

Illinois Hamilton 0.00

Illinois Hancock 0.00

Illinois Henry 0.00

Illinois Iroquois 0.00

Illinois Jefferson 0.00

Illinois Jersey 0.00

Illinois Kane 0.00

Illinois Kankakee 0.00

Illinois Kendall 0.00

Illinois Lake 0.00

Illinois La Salle 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C115

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Illinois Lee 0.00

Illinois Logan 10.67

Illinois McDonough 0.00

Illinois McHenry 0.00

Illinois McLean 0.00

Illinois Macon 0.00

Illinois Madison 0.00

Illinois Ogle 0.00

Illinois Peoria 0.00

Illinois Perry 0.00

Illinois Pike 0.00

Illinois Putnam 0.00

Illinois Rock Island 0.00

Illinois St. Clair 0.00

Illinois Tazewell 0.00

Illinois Union 0.00

Illinois Vermilion 0.00

Illinois Whiteside 0.83

Illinois Will 0.00

Illinois Winnebago 0.00

Illinois Woodford 0.00

Indiana Allen 0.00

Indiana Carroll 0.00

Indiana Clark 0.00

Indiana De Kalb 0.00

Indiana Hamilton 0.00

Indiana Hancock 0.00

Indiana Hendricks 0.00

Indiana Howard 0.00

Indiana Jasper 0.00

Indiana Johnson 0.00

Indiana Lake 0.00

Indiana Montgomery 0.00

Indiana St. Joseph 0.00

Indiana Tippecanoe 0.00

Indiana Wayne 0.00

Indiana Whitley 0.00

Iowa Boone 0.00

Iowa Cerro Gordo 0.00

Iowa Clay 0.00

Iowa Davis 0.00

Iowa Decatur 9.84

Iowa Floyd 0.00

Iowa Fremont 0.00

Iowa Greene 0.00

Iowa Johnson 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C116

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Iowa Mahaska 0.00

Iowa Marion 0.00

Iowa Marshall 0.00

Iowa Montgomery 0.00

Iowa Page 9.39

Iowa Polk 0.00

Iowa Pottawattamie 0.00

Iowa Shelby 0.00

Iowa Sioux 0.00

Iowa Warren 0.00

Iowa Washington 0.00

Iowa Winnebago 0.00

Iowa Woodbury 0.00

Kansas Butler 0.00

Kansas Douglas 0.00

Kansas Franklin 0.00

Kansas Geary 0.00

Kansas Johnson 0.00

Kansas Linn 0.00

Kansas Miami 0.00

Kansas Neosho 0.00

Kansas Reno 0.00

Kansas Sedgwick 0.00

Kansas Shawnee 0.00

Kansas Trego 0.00

Kansas Wabaunsee 0.00

Kentucky Boone 0.00

Kentucky Bourbon 41.56

Kentucky Calloway 6.32

Kentucky Carter 0.00

Kentucky Daviess 0.00

Kentucky Edmonson 0.00

Kentucky Fayette 0.00

Kentucky Franklin 0.00

Kentucky Graves 0.00

Kentucky Hardin 0.00

Kentucky Henderson 0.00

Kentucky Henry 0.00

Kentucky Jefferson 0.00

Kentucky Jessamine 0.00

Kentucky Lincoln 0.00

Kentucky McCracken 0.00

Kentucky Madison 0.00

Kentucky Nelson 0.00

Kentucky Nicholas 0.00

Kentucky Oldham 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C117

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Kentucky Shelby 0.00

Kentucky Spencer 0.00

Kentucky Warren 0.00

Kentucky Washington 0.00

Louisiana Acadia 1.21

Louisiana Bienville 0.00

Louisiana Bossier 0.54

Louisiana Caddo 0.00

Louisiana Calcasieu 3.10

Louisiana Catahoula 0.00

Louisiana Claiborne 0.00

Louisiana Concordia 0.00

Louisiana Franklin 0.00

Louisiana Iberia 0.00

Louisiana Iberville 0.00

Louisiana Jefferson 0.00

Louisiana Jefferson Davis 0.00

Louisiana Lafayette 0.00

Louisiana Lincoln 0.00

Louisiana Madison 0.00

Louisiana Plaquemines 0.29

Louisiana Rapides 0.04

Louisiana Richland 0.00

Louisiana Sabine 0.00

Louisiana Saint Charles 0.00

Louisiana Saint Landry 0.00

Louisiana Saint Tammany 1.40

Louisiana Tangipahoa 0.85

Louisiana Vermilion 0.00

Louisiana Vernon 0.00

Louisiana Washington 0.05

Louisiana Webster 0.00

Louisiana Winn 0.00

Maine Androscoggin 0.00

Maine Penobscot 0.00

Maryland Anne Arundel 0.00

Maryland Baltimore 0.00

Maryland Caroline 0.00

Maryland Carroll 0.00

Maryland Cecil 0.00

Maryland Dorchester 0.00

Maryland Frederick 0.00

Maryland Harford 0.00

Maryland Howard 0.00

Maryland Kent 0.00

Maryland Montgomery 0.31
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C118

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Maryland Prince George's 0.00

Maryland Queen Anne's 0.00

Maryland Somerset 0.00

Maryland Talbot 0.00

Maryland Wicomico 0.00

Maryland Worcester 0.00

Massachusetts Bristol 0.05

Massachusetts Franklin 0.00

Massachusetts Hampden 0.00

Massachusetts Hampshire 0.00

Massachusetts Middlesex 0.00

Massachusetts Plymouth 0.00

Massachusetts Worcester 0.00

Michigan Allegan 0.00

Michigan Antrim 0.00

Michigan Barry 0.00

Michigan Berrien 0.00

Michigan Calhoun 0.00

Michigan Charlevoix 0.00

Michigan Crawford 0.00

Michigan Eaton 0.00

Michigan Genesee 0.00

Michigan Huron 0.00

Michigan Ingham 0.00

Michigan Ionia 0.00

Michigan Jackson 0.00

Michigan Kalamazoo 0.00

Michigan Kent 0.00

Michigan Lapeer 0.00

Michigan Lenawee 0.00

Michigan Livingston 0.00

Michigan Macomb 0.00

Michigan Missaukee 0.00

Michigan Monroe 0.00

Michigan Montcalm 0.00

Michigan Newaygo 0.00

Michigan Oakland 0.00

Michigan Ottawa 0.00

Michigan St. Clair 0.00

Michigan Sanilac 0.00

Michigan Shiawassee 0.00

Michigan Tuscola 0.00

Michigan Van Buren 1.69

Michigan Washtenaw 0.00

Michigan Wayne 0.00

Minnesota Anoka 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C119

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Minnesota Benton 0.00

Minnesota Blue Earth 0.00

Minnesota Carlton 0.00

Minnesota Carver 0.00

Minnesota Chisago 0.00

Minnesota Cottonwood 0.00

Minnesota Dakota 0.00

Minnesota Douglas 0.00

Minnesota Hennepin 0.00

Minnesota Houston 0.00

Minnesota Hubbard 0.00

Minnesota Isanti 0.00

Minnesota Itasca 0.00

Minnesota Jackson 0.00

Minnesota Kanabec 0.00

Minnesota Le Sueur 0.00

Minnesota Lincoln 0.00

Minnesota Lyon 0.00

Minnesota Meeker 0.00

Minnesota Mille Lacs 0.00

Minnesota Pine 0.00

Minnesota Polk 0.00

Minnesota Ramsey 0.00

Minnesota Rice 0.00

Minnesota Scott 0.00

Minnesota Stearns 0.00

Minnesota Washington 0.10

Minnesota Wright 0.00

Mississippi Adams 0.00

Mississippi Attala 0.00

Mississippi Benton 0.10

Mississippi Copiah 0.00

Mississippi Covington 4.88

Mississippi George 0.11

Mississippi Harrison 7.87

Mississippi Hinds 0.00

Mississippi Jackson 0.06

Mississippi Lamar 0.00

Mississippi Madison 0.00

Mississippi Marshall 1.03

Mississippi Oktibbeha 0.00

Mississippi Pontotoc 0.00

Mississippi Stone 0.00

Mississippi Tippah 0.00

Mississippi Walthall 0.00

Mississippi Wayne 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C120

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Mississippi Winston 0.00

Missouri Atchison 0.00

Missouri Bates 0.00

Missouri Boone 0.00

Missouri Cass 0.00

Missouri Clay 2.97

Missouri Cole 0.00

Missouri Crawford 0.00

Missouri Dade 0.69

Missouri Franklin 0.00

Missouri Grundy 0.00

Missouri Harrison 0.00

Missouri Holt 0.00

Missouri Jackson 0.03

Missouri Jasper 0.00

Missouri Jefferson 0.07

Missouri Lafayette 0.00

Missouri Lawrence 0.00

Missouri Lincoln 0.04

Missouri Linn 0.00

Missouri Macon 1.16

Missouri Madison 0.00

Missouri Maries 0.00

Missouri Mississippi 0.00

Missouri Moniteau 0.00

Missouri Montgomery 1.10

Missouri New Madrid 0.00

Missouri Pike 0.00

Missouri St. Charles 0.00

Missouri St. Francois 0.00

Missouri St. Louis 0.00

Missouri Saline 0.00

Missouri Scott 0.00

Missouri Warren 0.00

Missouri Webster 0.00

Missouri St. Louis City 0.00

Montana Beaverhead 3.03

Montana Cascade 0.00

Montana Flathead 0.00

Montana Ravalli 0.00

Montana Sanders 0.00

Nebraska Adams 0.00

Nebraska Box Butte 8.85

Nebraska Burt 0.00

Nebraska Cuming 0.00

Nebraska Dodge 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C121

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Nebraska Douglas 4.45

Nebraska Keith 0.00

Nebraska Lancaster 0.00

Nebraska Lincoln 0.00

Nebraska Madison 2.44

Nebraska Sarpy 0.00

Nebraska Saunders 0.00

Nebraska Scotts Bluff 3.97

Nebraska Thayer 0.00

Nebraska Washington 0.00

Nevada Clark 0.00

Nevada Nye 0.00

New Hampshire Hillsborough 0.00

New Hampshire Merrimack 0.00

New Hampshire Rockingham 0.00

New Hampshire Strafford 0.00

New Jersey Atlantic 0.00

New Jersey Burlington 0.00

New Jersey Camden 0.00

New Jersey Cape May 0.00

New Jersey Cumberland 0.00

New Jersey Gloucester 0.00

New Jersey Hunterdon 0.00

New Jersey Mercer 0.00

New Jersey Middlesex 0.00

New Jersey Monmouth 0.00

New Jersey Morris 0.00

New Jersey Ocean 0.00

New Jersey Salem 0.33

New Jersey Somerset 0.00

New Jersey Sussex 0.00

New Jersey Union 0.00

New Jersey Warren 0.00

New Mexico Curry 3.85

New Mexico Dona Ana 0.00

New Mexico Lea 0.00

New Mexico Mora 0.00

New Mexico Quay 0.00

New York Albany 0.00

New York Cattaraugus 0.00

New York Cayuga 0.00

New York Chautauqua 0.00

New York Dutchess 0.00

New York Erie 0.27

New York Genesee 0.00

New York Monroe 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C122

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

New York Oneida 0.00

New York Onondaga 0.00

New York Ontario 0.00

New York Otsego 0.00

New York Rensselaer 0.00

New York Schenectady 0.00

New York Schoharie 0.00

New York Schuyler 7.58

New York Suffolk 0.00

New York Tioga 0.00

New York Tompkins 0.00

New York Wayne 0.00

New York Westchester 0.00

North Carolina Alamance 0.00

North Carolina Alexander 0.00

North Carolina Anson 0.00

North Carolina Ashe 0.00

North Carolina Avery 0.15

North Carolina Beaufort 0.00

North Carolina Bladen 0.00

North Carolina Brunswick 2.16

North Carolina Buncombe 0.00

North Carolina Burke 0.84

North Carolina Cabarrus 0.00

North Carolina Caldwell 1.08

North Carolina Caswell 0.00

North Carolina Catawba 0.00

North Carolina Chatham 0.01

North Carolina Cherokee 0.00

North Carolina Chowan 0.00

North Carolina Cleveland 0.56

North Carolina Columbus 0.55

North Carolina Craven 0.00

North Carolina Cumberland 0.00

North Carolina Davie 0.00

North Carolina Duplin 0.22

North Carolina Edgecombe 0.00

North Carolina Forsyth 0.20

North Carolina Franklin 0.00

North Carolina Gaston 0.00

North Carolina Granville 0.00

North Carolina Greene 0.00

North Carolina Guilford 0.00

North Carolina Halifax 0.00

North Carolina Harnett 0.01

North Carolina Haywood 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C123

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

North Carolina Henderson 0.02

North Carolina Hyde 0.81

North Carolina Iredell 0.00

North Carolina Jackson 0.00

North Carolina Johnston 0.15

North Carolina Lee 0.00

North Carolina Lenoir 0.00

North Carolina Lincoln 0.00

North Carolina McDowell 0.79

North Carolina Macon 0.00

North Carolina Madison 0.00

North Carolina Martin 0.00

North Carolina Mecklenburg 0.00

North Carolina Mitchell 1.27

North Carolina Montgomery 0.00

North Carolina Moore 0.00

North Carolina Nash 0.00

North Carolina New Hanover 0.00

North Carolina Northampton 0.00

North Carolina Onslow 0.00

North Carolina Orange 0.00

North Carolina Pasquotank 0.57

North Carolina Pender 0.47

North Carolina Pitt 0.00

North Carolina Polk 0.00

North Carolina Randolph 0.00

North Carolina Richmond 0.00

North Carolina Robeson 0.03

North Carolina Rockingham 0.36

North Carolina Rowan 0.00

North Carolina Rutherford 0.00

North Carolina Sampson 0.00

North Carolina Stanly 0.00

North Carolina Stokes 0.00

North Carolina Surry 0.00

North Carolina Transylvania 0.00

North Carolina Union 0.00

North Carolina Vance 0.00

North Carolina Wake 0.01

North Carolina Warren 0.00

North Carolina Watauga 0.00

North Carolina Wayne 0.00

North Carolina Wilkes 4.03

North Carolina Wilson 0.00

North Carolina Yadkin 0.00

North Carolina Yancey 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C124

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

North Dakota Burleigh 0.57

North Dakota Dickey 0.00

North Dakota La Moure 0.00

North Dakota McHenry 0.00

North Dakota Nelson 0.00

North Dakota Sargent 0.00

North Dakota Stark 0.00

North Dakota Ward 0.00

Ohio Ashland 0.00

Ohio Ashtabula 0.88

Ohio Athens 0.00

Ohio Auglaize 0.00

Ohio Brown 0.00

Ohio Carroll 0.00

Ohio Champaign 0.00

Ohio Clark 0.00

Ohio Clermont 0.00

Ohio Coshocton 0.00

Ohio Crawford 0.00

Ohio Cuyahoga 0.00

Ohio Darke 0.00

Ohio Delaware 0.00

Ohio Erie 0.00

Ohio Franklin 0.00

Ohio Greene 0.00

Ohio Hardin 0.00

Ohio Hocking 0.00

Ohio Lake 0.00

Ohio Lorain 0.00

Ohio Lucas 0.00

Ohio Mahoning 0.00

Ohio Medina 0.00

Ohio Meigs 0.00

Ohio Miami 0.00

Ohio Montgomery 0.00

Ohio Muskingum 0.00

Ohio Paulding 0.00

Ohio Pickaway 1.16

Ohio Portage 0.00

Ohio Richland 0.00

Ohio Stark 0.00

Ohio Summit 0.00

Ohio Trumbull 0.00

Ohio Union 0.00

Ohio Warren 0.00

Ohio Wayne 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C125

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Ohio Wood 0.00

Oklahoma Canadian 1.11

Oklahoma Cherokee 0.00

Oklahoma Cleveland 0.16

Oklahoma Comanche 0.00

Oklahoma Garvin 0.00

Oklahoma Grady 0.00

Oklahoma Kingfisher 2.18

Oklahoma McClain 0.00

Oklahoma Mayes 0.00

Oklahoma Murray 0.00

Oklahoma Muskogee 0.00

Oklahoma Oklahoma 0.30

Oklahoma Okmulgee 9.63

Oklahoma Payne 0.00

Oklahoma Pontotoc 0.00

Oklahoma Rogers 0.00

Oklahoma Wagoner 0.00

Oregon Benton 0.00

Oregon Clackamas 0.00

Oregon Columbia 0.00

Oregon Curry 0.00

Oregon Deschutes 0.00

Oregon Douglas 0.00

Oregon Hood River 0.00

Oregon Jefferson 0.00

Oregon Josephine 0.00

Oregon Klamath 0.00

Oregon Lane 0.00

Oregon Lincoln 0.00

Oregon Linn 0.00

Oregon Marion 0.00

Oregon Multnomah 0.00

Oregon Polk 0.00

Oregon Umatilla 0.00

Oregon Washington 0.00

Oregon Yamhill 0.00

Pennsylvania Adams 0.00

Pennsylvania Allegheny 0.00

Pennsylvania Armstrong 0.00

Pennsylvania Berks 0.00

Pennsylvania Bradford 0.00

Pennsylvania Bucks 0.51

Pennsylvania Butler 0.59

Pennsylvania Cambria 0.00

Pennsylvania Carbon 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C126

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Pennsylvania Centre 0.00

Pennsylvania Chester 0.00

Pennsylvania Clearfield 0.00

Pennsylvania Columbia 0.00

Pennsylvania Cumberland 0.00

Pennsylvania Erie 0.00

Pennsylvania Fayette 0.00

Pennsylvania Franklin 0.00

Pennsylvania Indiana 0.00

Pennsylvania Juniata 0.00

Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.00

Pennsylvania Lancaster 0.00

Pennsylvania Lehigh 0.00

Pennsylvania Luzerne 0.00

Pennsylvania Lycoming 0.00

Pennsylvania Mercer 0.00

Pennsylvania Monroe 0.00

Pennsylvania Montgomery 0.00

Pennsylvania Montour 0.00

Pennsylvania Northampton 0.00

Pennsylvania Northumberland 0.00

Pennsylvania Perry 0.00

Pennsylvania Pike 0.00

Pennsylvania Schuylkill 0.00

Pennsylvania Snyder 0.00

Pennsylvania Somerset 0.00

Pennsylvania Tioga 0.00

Pennsylvania Union 0.00

Pennsylvania Wayne 0.00

Pennsylvania Westmoreland 0.00

Pennsylvania York 0.00

Rhode Island Bristol 0.13

Rhode Island Washington 0.00

South Carolina Abbeville 0.00

South Carolina Aiken 0.00

South Carolina Allendale 0.00

South Carolina Anderson 0.00

South Carolina Bamberg 0.00

South Carolina Barnwell 0.00

South Carolina Berkeley 0.00

South Carolina Calhoun 0.00

South Carolina Charleston 0.02

South Carolina Cherokee 0.00

South Carolina Chesterfield 0.00

South Carolina Clarendon 0.29

South Carolina Colleton 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C127

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

South Carolina Darlington 0.00

South Carolina Dorchester 0.00

South Carolina Edgefield 0.00

South Carolina Fairfield 0.00

South Carolina Florence 0.00

South Carolina Georgetown 0.00

South Carolina Greenville 0.00

South Carolina Greenwood 0.00

South Carolina Hampton 0.00

South Carolina Horry 0.00

South Carolina Jasper 0.00

South Carolina Kershaw 0.00

South Carolina Lancaster 0.00

South Carolina Laurens 1.26

South Carolina Lee 0.00

South Carolina Lexington 0.00

South Carolina Marion 0.00

South Carolina Marlboro 0.00

South Carolina Newberry 0.00

South Carolina Oconee 0.00

South Carolina Orangeburg 0.00

South Carolina Pickens 0.00

South Carolina Richland 0.00

South Carolina Spartanburg 0.03

South Carolina Sumter 0.00

South Carolina Williamsburg 0.17

South Carolina York 0.00

South Dakota Bennett 0.00

South Dakota Codington 0.00

South Dakota Jackson 1.64

South Dakota Lake 0.00

South Dakota Pennington 22.59

South Dakota Spink 0.00

South Dakota Yankton 0.00

Tennessee Bedford 0.00

Tennessee Blount 0.38

Tennessee Cannon 26.79

Tennessee Carter 0.00

Tennessee Chester 0.00

Tennessee Coffee 0.03

Tennessee Davidson 0.00

Tennessee De Kalb 2.77

Tennessee Fentress 0.00

Tennessee Franklin 0.83

Tennessee Gibson 0.00

Tennessee Greene 8.01
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C128

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Tennessee Grundy 2.03

Tennessee Hardin 9.00

Tennessee Hawkins 0.32

Tennessee Haywood 0.00

Tennessee Henderson 0.00

Tennessee Hickman 7.02

Tennessee Johnson 0.34

Tennessee Knox 0.00

Tennessee Lake 8.31

Tennessee Lawrence 0.00

Tennessee Lincoln 0.94

Tennessee Loudon 0.00

Tennessee McMinn 0.00

Tennessee McNairy 0.00

Tennessee Madison 26.54

Tennessee Marion 0.00

Tennessee Marshall 0.00

Tennessee Meigs 0.00

Tennessee Moore 0.00

Tennessee Overton 0.00

Tennessee Putnam 0.00

Tennessee Rhea 0.00

Tennessee Robertson 0.00

Tennessee Rutherford 0.00

Tennessee Sequatchie 0.00

Tennessee Sevier 0.00

Tennessee Sullivan 6.10

Tennessee Sumner 0.00

Tennessee Van Buren 1.44

Tennessee Warren 2.40

Tennessee Weakley 0.00

Tennessee White 0.00

Tennessee Williamson 0.00

Texas Anderson 0.00

Texas Atascosa 0.00

Texas Austin 0.00

Texas Bailey 0.00

Texas Bastrop 0.00

Texas Bexar 0.01

Texas Blanco 0.00

Texas Borden 0.00

Texas Bosque 0.00

Texas Bowie 0.00

Texas Brazoria 0.01

Texas Brazos 0.00

Texas Brown 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C129

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Texas Burleson 0.00

Texas Burnet 0.00

Texas Caldwell 0.00

Texas Callahan 0.00

Texas Cameron 0.27

Texas Cass 0.00

Texas Cherokee 0.00

Texas Collin 0.00

Texas Colorado 0.00

Texas Comal 0.00

Texas Comanche 0.00

Texas Dallam 5.37

Texas Dallas 0.00

Texas Dawson 53.12

Texas Delta 0.00

Texas Denton 0.00

Texas Dimmit 0.00

Texas Eastland 0.00

Texas Ector 0.00

Texas Ellis 0.00

Texas Erath 4.50

Texas Falls 0.00

Texas Fannin 0.00

Texas Fayette 0.00

Texas Fort Bend 0.01

Texas Franklin 0.00

Texas Frio 0.00

Texas Galveston 0.00

Texas Gillespie 0.00

Texas Gonzales 0.00

Texas Grayson 0.00

Texas Grimes 0.00

Texas Guadalupe 0.00

Texas Hamilton 0.00

Texas Harris 0.00

Texas Hartley 5.13

Texas Hays 0.00

Texas Henderson 0.00

Texas Hidalgo 0.09

Texas Hopkins 0.00

Texas Houston 0.00

Texas Hunt 0.00

Texas Jack 0.00

Texas Jackson 0.00

Texas Jasper 0.00

Texas Jeff Davis 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C130

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Texas Jim Wells 0.00

Texas Johnson 0.00

Texas Kaufman 0.00

Texas Kendall 0.00

Texas Kerr 0.00

Texas Lamar 0.00

Texas Lamb 0.00

Texas Lavaca 0.24

Texas Lee 0.00

Texas Leon 0.00

Texas Liberty 0.00

Texas Limestone 0.00

Texas Live Oak 0.00

Texas Lubbock 0.13

Texas McLennan 0.00

Texas Marion 0.00

Texas Martin 0.00

Texas Matagorda 0.00

Texas Midland 0.83

Texas Montgomery 0.02

Texas Nueces 0.00

Texas Orange 0.76

Texas Palo Pinto 0.00

Texas Parker 0.00

Texas Polk 0.00

Texas Potter 0.80

Texas Rains 0.00

Texas Randall 0.00

Texas Red River 0.00

Texas Rockwall 0.27

Texas Runnels 0.00

Texas Rusk 0.26

Texas Sabine 0.00

Texas San Jacinto 0.00

Texas Smith 0.00

Texas Swisher 0.00

Texas Tarrant 0.06

Texas Taylor 0.00

Texas Tom Green 0.00

Texas Travis 0.00

Texas Tyler 0.00

Texas Uvalde 0.00

Texas Val Verde 0.00

Texas Van Zandt 0.00

Texas Walker 0.20

Texas Waller 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C131

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Texas Washington 0.06

Texas Webb 0.00

Texas Wharton 0.00

Texas Wichita 0.00

Texas Willacy 0.00

Texas Williamson 0.00

Texas Wilson 0.00

Texas Wise 0.00

Texas Wood 0.00

Texas Zavala 0.00

Utah Davis 0.00

Utah Salt Lake 0.00

Utah Utah 0.00

Utah Weber 0.00

Vermont Lamoille 0.00

Vermont Windsor 0.00

Virginia Accomack 0.01

Virginia Amelia 0.00

Virginia Augusta 0.00

Virginia Bedford 0.00

Virginia Campbell 0.00

Virginia Caroline 0.00

Virginia Charlotte 0.00

Virginia Clarke 0.00

Virginia Culpeper 0.00

Virginia Essex 0.00

Virginia Floyd 0.00

Virginia Fluvanna 0.00

Virginia Franklin 0.00

Virginia Frederick 0.00

Virginia Gloucester 0.00

Virginia Halifax 0.00

Virginia Hanover 0.01

Virginia Henrico 0.00

Virginia Isle of Wight 0.00

Virginia King William 0.00

Virginia Loudoun 0.00

Virginia Mathews 0.00

Virginia Mecklenburg 0.00

Virginia Nelson 0.00

Virginia New Kent 0.00

Virginia Northampton 0.01

Virginia Orange 0.00

Virginia Patrick 0.00

Virginia Pittsylvania 0.00

Virginia Prince Edward 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C132

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Virginia Rappahannock 0.00

Virginia Richmond 0.00

Virginia Roanoke 0.00

Virginia Rockbridge 0.00

Virginia Rockingham 0.00

Virginia Shenandoah 0.00

Virginia Smyth 0.00

Virginia Southampton 0.00

Virginia Surry 0.00

Virginia Sussex 0.00

Virginia Washington 0.00

Virginia Westmoreland 0.00

Virginia Chesapeake City 0.00

Virginia Suffolk City 0.00

Virginia Virginia Beach City 0.00

Washington Adams 0.00

Washington Benton 0.00

Washington Clark 0.00

Washington Franklin 0.00

Washington Grant 0.12

Washington Grays Harbor 0.00

Washington King 0.00

Washington Klickitat 0.00

Washington Lewis 0.00

Washington Pierce 0.00

Washington Skagit 0.00

Washington Snohomish 0.52

Washington Spokane 0.00

Washington Stevens 0.01

Washington Thurston 0.00

Washington Walla Walla 0.00

Washington Whatcom 0.00

Washington Yakima 7.18

West Virginia Fayette 0.00

West Virginia Greenbrier 0.00

West Virginia Jefferson 0.00

West Virginia Putnam 0.00

West Virginia Taylor 0.00

West Virginia Wirt 0.00

Wisconsin Adams 0.00

Wisconsin Bayfield 0.00

Wisconsin Brown 0.00

Wisconsin Calumet 0.00

Wisconsin Chippewa 0.00

Wisconsin Columbia 0.00

Wisconsin Dane 0.50
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C133

Data for Figure 20. Loss Ratio

State County Loss Ratio

Wisconsin Dodge 0.00

Wisconsin Door 0.00

Wisconsin Eau Claire 0.00

Wisconsin Fond Du Lac 0.10

Wisconsin Green Lake 0.00

Wisconsin Jackson 0.00

Wisconsin Kenosha 0.00

Wisconsin Kewaunee 0.00

Wisconsin Lincoln 0.20

Wisconsin Manitowoc 0.00

Wisconsin Marathon 0.00

Wisconsin Milwaukee 0.00

Wisconsin Monroe 0.00

Wisconsin Oneida 0.00

Wisconsin Outagamie 0.00

Wisconsin Pierce 0.00

Wisconsin Polk 0.00

Wisconsin Portage 0.00

Wisconsin Racine 0.00

Wisconsin Rock 0.00

Wisconsin St. Croix 0.00

Wisconsin Shawano 0.00

Wisconsin Walworth 0.00

Wisconsin Washington 0.00

Wisconsin Waukesha 0.00

Wisconsin Waupaca 0.00

Wisconsin Waushara 0.00

Wisconsin Winnebago 0.00

Wisconsin Wood 0.00

Wyoming Natrona 0.00

Wyoming Platte 0.00

Wyoming Teton 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C134

Data for Figure 21. State Loss Ratios 1999 through 2011

State Loss Ratio

Alabama 0.08

Arizona 0.03

Arkansas 0.00

California 0.14

Colorado 1.58

Connecticut 0.00

Delaware 0.00

Florida 1.15

Georgia 0.21

Hawaii 0.00

Idaho 0.00

Illinois 0.01

Indiana 0.00

Iowa 0.05

Kansas 0.00

Kentucky 2.80

Louisiana 0.04

Maine 0.00

Maryland 0.00

Massachusetts 0.00

Michigan 0.00

Minnesota 0.10

Mississippi 0.03

Missouri 0.47

Montana 0.00

Nebraska 1.02

New Hampshire 0.00

New Jersey 0.76

New Mexico 1.01

New York 0.00

North Carolina 0.32

North Dakota 0.14

Ohio 0.18

Oklahoma 0.08

Oregon 0.00

Pennsylvania 0.00

South Carolina 0.00

South Dakota 0.43

Tennessee 1.47

Texas 0.25

Virginia 0.00

Washington 3.46

Wisconsin 0.01
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C135

Data for Figure 22. Florida Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Florida Alachua 232

Florida Baker 26

Florida Brevard 195

Florida Broward 894

Florida Calhoun 9

Florida Charlotte 55

Florida Citrus 49

Florida Clay 53

Florida Collier 239

Florida Columbia 60

Florida Dade 1134

Florida De Soto 120

Florida Dixie 4

Florida Duval 60

Florida Escambia 13

Florida Flagler 27

Florida Gadsden 111

Florida Gilchrist 45

Florida Glades 112

Florida Hamilton 18

Florida Hardee 285

Florida Hendry 117

Florida Hernando 140

Florida Highlands 309

Florida Hillsborough 830

Florida Indian River 149

Florida Jackson 31

Florida Jefferson 126

Florida Lafayette 19

Florida Lake 1229

Florida Lee 908

Florida Leon 24

Florida Levy 68

Florida Liberty 14

Florida Madison 75

Florida Manatee 539

Florida Marion 194

Florida Martin 370

Florida Miami-Dade 5373

Florida Monroe 10

Florida Okaloosa 11

Florida Okeechobee 91

Florida Orange 1892

Florida Osceola 167

Florida Palm Beach 2214

Florida Pasco 289
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C136

Data for Figure 22. Florida Policies Earning Premium 1999 through 2011

State County Policies

Florida Pinellas 43

Florida Polk 496

Florida Putnam 75

Florida St. Johns 56

Florida St. Lucie 294

Florida Santa Rosa 51

Florida Sarasota 121

Florida Seminole 167

Florida Sumter 244

Florida Suwannee 70

Florida Taylor 10

Florida Volusia 303

Florida Wakulla 7

Florida Walton 6
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C137

Data for Figure 23. Florida Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Florida Alachua 166.6

Florida Baker 59.3

Florida Brevard 68.1

Florida Broward 208.0

Florida Calhoun 6.1

Florida Charlotte 10.9

Florida Citrus 9.4

Florida Clay 35.4

Florida Collier 112.5

Florida Columbia 16.2

Florida Dade 694.8

Florida De Soto 39.5

Florida Dixie 0.5

Florida Duval 13.7

Florida Escambia 2.9

Florida Flagler 48.1

Florida Gadsden 258.5

Florida Gilchrist 20.6

Florida Glades 42.8

Florida Hamilton 9.7

Florida Hardee 147.6

Florida Hendry 59.8

Florida Hernando 114.2

Florida Highlands 125.5

Florida Hillsborough 370.6

Florida Indian River 44.3

Florida Jackson 11.0

Florida Jefferson 77.3

Florida Lafayette 20.1

Florida Lake 670.7

Florida Lee 570.6

Florida Leon 6.4

Florida Levy 121.2

Florida Liberty 1.0

Florida Madison 22.5

Florida Manatee 209.5

Florida Marion 92.2

Florida Martin 274.1

Florida Miami-Dade 3758.8

Florida Monroe 0.7

Florida Okaloosa 1.5

Florida Okeechobee 81.3

Florida Orange 507.7

Florida Osceola 37.4

Florida Palm Beach 1218.8

Florida Pasco 54.4
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C138

Data for Figure 23. Florida Liability 1999 through 2011

State County Liability (Millions of $)

Florida Pinellas 7.0

Florida Polk 157.5

Florida Putnam 88.5

Florida St. Johns 21.1

Florida St. Lucie 167.8

Florida Santa Rosa 33.3

Florida Sarasota 31.7

Florida Seminole 82.6

Florida Sumter 150.4

Florida Suwannee 52.5

Florida Taylor 34.1

Florida Volusia 147.0

Florida Wakulla 0.8

Florida Walton 0.5
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C139

Data for Figure 24. Florida Indemnities Paid 1999 through 2011

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Florida Alachua 0.1

Florida Baker 4.8

Florida Brevard 2.6

Florida Broward 8.9

Florida Calhoun 0.0

Florida Charlotte 0.2

Florida Citrus 0.1

Florida Clay 0.1

Florida Collier 0.4

Florida Columbia 0.0

Florida Dade 66.7

Florida De Soto 1.8

Florida Dixie 0.1

Florida Duval 0.1

Florida Escambia 0.0

Florida Flagler 0.0

Florida Gadsden 0.2

Florida Gilchrist 0.0

Florida Glades 4.7

Florida Hamilton 0.0

Florida Hardee 4.7

Florida Hendry 4.3

Florida Hernando 0.0

Florida Highlands 3.7

Florida Hillsborough 0.5

Florida Indian River 0.7

Florida Jackson 0.0

Florida Jefferson 0.0

Florida Lafayette 0.0

Florida Lake 3.2

Florida Lee 14.5

Florida Leon 0.0

Florida Levy 0.4

Florida Liberty 0.0

Florida Madison 0.0

Florida Manatee 3.3

Florida Marion 0.8

Florida Martin 12.2

Florida Miami-Dade 328.7

Florida Monroe 0.4

Florida Okaloosa 0.0

Florida Okeechobee 11.1

Florida Orange 5.0

Florida Osceola 0.5

Florida Palm Beach 117.0

Florida Pasco 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C140

Data for Figure 24. Florida Indemnities Paid 1999 through 2011

State County Indemnity (Millions of $)

Florida Pinellas 0.0

Florida Polk 1.7

Florida Putnam 0.4

Florida St. Johns 0.1

Florida St. Lucie 8.4

Florida Santa Rosa 0.8

Florida Sarasota 0.0

Florida Seminole 12.7

Florida Sumter 0.0

Florida Suwannee 0.0

Florida Taylor 0.0

Florida Volusia 1.6

Florida Wakulla 0.0

Florida Walton 0.0
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C141

Data for Figure 25. Florida Loss Ratios 1999 through 2011

State County Loss Ratio

Florida Alachua 0.04

Florida Baker 3.22

Florida Brevard 1.27

Florida Broward 1.15

Florida Calhoun 0.00

Florida Charlotte 0.81

Florida Citrus 0.46

Florida Clay 0.11

Florida Collier 0.11

Florida Columbia 0.00

Florida Dade 2.31

Florida De Soto 1.68

Florida Dixie 14.97

Florida Duval 0.37

Florida Escambia 0.00

Florida Flagler 0.00

Florida Gadsden 0.05

Florida Gilchrist 0.01

Florida Glades 3.91

Florida Hamilton 0.00

Florida Hardee 1.08

Florida Hendry 2.21

Florida Hernando 0.00

Florida Highlands 0.85

Florida Hillsborough 0.05

Florida Indian River 0.46

Florida Jackson 0.12

Florida Jefferson 0.00

Florida Lafayette 0.00

Florida Lake 0.17

Florida Lee 0.93

Florida Leon 0.00

Florida Levy 0.21

Florida Liberty 0.00

Florida Madison 0.04

Florida Manatee 0.57

Florida Marion 0.37

Florida Martin 1.21

Florida Miami-Dade 1.79

Florida Monroe 19.04

Florida Okaloosa 0.00

Florida Okeechobee 4.81

Florida Orange 0.34

Florida Osceola 0.49

Florida Palm Beach 2.29

Florida Pasco 0.01
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C142

Data for Figure 25. Florida Loss Ratios 1999 through 2011

State County Loss Ratio

Florida Pinellas 0.00

Florida Polk 0.38

Florida Putnam 0.17

Florida St. Johns 0.09

Florida St. Lucie 1.48

Florida Santa Rosa 1.26

Florida Sarasota 0.00

Florida Seminole 6.08

Florida Sumter 0.00

Florida Suwannee 0.02

Florida Taylor 0.00

Florida Volusia 0.33

Florida Wakulla 0.00

Florida Walton 0.00
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachments 

Attachment I. 2008 Nursery Crop Provisions 

Attachment II. 2008 Peak Inventory Endorsement 

Attachment III. 2006 Rehabilitation Endorsement 

Attachment IV. 2006 Nursery Grower’s Pilot Price Endorsement 

Attachment V. 2011 Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions 

Attachment VI. 2012 Nursery Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook 

Attachment VII. 2011 Loss Adjustment Manual Standards Handbook 

Attachment VIII. Sample Actuarial Materials 

Attachment IX. Other Material Cited in the Report or Used in its Preparation 

Attachment IXa. 2012 Nursery Crop Underwriting Guide 

Attachment IXb 2011 Crop Insurance Handbook 

With RMA’s consent, the Contractor is incorporating these attachments by reference 

indentifying on the title page of the attachment the location on RMA’s website of the 

relevant RMA document. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment I 

2008 Nursery Crop Provisions 

The 2008 Nursery Crop Provisions (08-073 (rev. 10-06) can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2008/08-073.pdf.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment II 

2008 Peak Inventory Endorsement 

The 2008 Peak Inventory Endorsement (08-073A) can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2008/08-073a.pdf.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment III 

2006 Rehabilitation Endorsement 

The 2006 Rehabilitation Endorsement (06-073B) can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2006/crops/pdf/06_073b.pdf.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment IV 

2006 Nursery Grower’s Pilot Price Endorsement 

The 2006 Pilot Nursery Grower’s Pilot Price Endorsement (06-073C) can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2006/pilot/pdf/06073nur-c.pdf.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment V 

2011 Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions 

USDA RMA provides both current and historic Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic 

Provisions on its Website (http://www.rma.usda.gov/). The Common Crop Insurance Policy, 

Basic Provisions (11-br), whose use is not limited to the Nursery Program, can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2011/11-br.pdf..
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment VI 

2012 Nursery Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook 

The 2012 Nursery Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/25000/2012/12_25750.pdf.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment VII 

2011 Loss Adjustment Manual Standards Handbook 

USDA RMA provides both current and historic Loss Adjustment Manual (LAM) Standards 

Handbook on its Website (http://www.rma.usda.gov/). The LAM Standards Handbook (FCIC25010 (02-2011)), whose application is not limited to the Nursery Program, can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/25000/2011/11_25010.pdf.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment VIII 

Actuarial Materials 

The Type 11, 15 and 21 data were the actuarial materials used to prepare the rating analysis. 

These records are confidential and can therefore not be incorporated in this report. Alternative 

rating output is available from the RMA Actuarial Information Browser 

(http://webapp.rma.usda.gov/apps/actuarialinformationbrowser/). The output from the RMA 

Actuarial Information Browser for the Nursery Program is several thousand pages. To limit the 

impact on paper usage when this report is printed, sample RMA Actuarial Information Browser 

documents are provided to illustrate the nature of the output from the browser, with agreement of 

the Government. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Exhibit 1. Sample output from the RMA Information Browser Report Display illustrating 

output from the Types/Practices tab. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Exhibit 2. Sample output from the RMA Information Browser Report Display illustrating 

output from the Unit Structure tab. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Exhibit 3. Sample output from the RMA Information Browser Report Display illustrating 

output from the Dates tab. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Exhibit 4. Sample output from the RMA Information Browser Report Display illustrating 

output from the Rates tab. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Exhibit 5. Sample output from the RMA Information Browser Report Display illustrating 

output from the Special Provisions tab. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Exhibit 6. Sample output from the RMA Information Browser Report Display illustrating 

the output from the Subsidy Factors tab. 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment IX

Other Material Cited in the Report or Used in its 

Preparation 
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment IXa

2012 Nursery Crop Underwriting Guide 

The 2012 Nursery Crop Underwriting Guide (24090-1 (2-2011)) can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/24000/2012/24090-1.pdf.
Nursery Insurance Program Evaluation Summary Report 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PS18819/0001 

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Attachment IXb 

2011 Crop Insurance Handbook 

USDA RMA provides both current and historic Crop Insurance Handbooks on its Website 

(http://www.rma.usda.gov/). For this report, the 2011 Crop Insurance Handbook (FCIC 18010-1 

(11-2010)), which has applications beyond the Nursery Program, can be found at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/18000/2011/11_18010-2.pdf.