1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2992

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa. 

Russell T. Hawley; Hawley Insurance, *

Inc., *

*

Appellees. * 

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2009

Filed: August 23, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge,1

 SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

The United States brought a civil action against Russell T. Hawley, an

insurance agent, and his insurance company, Hawley Insurance, Inc. (collectively,

“Hawley”), alleging violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729(a)(1)-(3) (2006), amended by Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009,

Pub. L. No. 111-21, § 4(a)(1), 123 Stat. 1617, 1621-22 (2009), and fraud under Iowa

common law. The theory of the government’s suit was that Hawley defrauded the
-2-

government by causing ineligible farmers to make claims against insurance policies

that were issued by a private insurance company and reinsured by a government

corporation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hawley on all

claims, and the government appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.

In 1938, Congress enacted the Federal Crop Insurance Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C.

§§ 1501-1524, to “improv[e] the economic stability of agriculture” by establishing a

federal crop insurance program. Id. § 1502(a). To implement the program, Congress

created the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (“FCIC”), a wholly owned

government corporation within the United States Department of Agriculture. Id.

§ 1503; 7 C.F.R. § 400.701. In 1996, Congress created the Risk Management Agency

(“RMA”), which administers the federal crop insurance program on behalf of the

FCIC. We refer to the FCIC and the RMA jointly as the FCIC. 

The FCIC contracts with approved private insurance companies to offer crop

insurance policies to eligible farmers. 7 U.S.C. § 1502(b)(2). Under the program,

farmers purchase policies from the designated private insurance companies, and

insurance agents receive commissions for the policies they write for those companies.

Those companies are in turn reinsured by the FCIC in accordance with the terms of

a standard reinsurance agreement (“SRA”). Thus, when a farmer incurs a loss to an

insured crop, the farmer files a claim with the private insurance company. The

insurance company assesses the amount of the loss, pays the farmer’s claim for

damage, and then seeks reimbursement from the FCIC. The FCIC reimburses the

company for all or part of the amount paid to the farmer, depending on the particular

arrangement set forth in the SRA. The FCIC also subsidizes a portion of the

premiums paid by the insured farmers.
-3-

The approved private insurance company in this case was North Central Crop

Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”). Russell Hawley worked as a private insurance agent for

NCCI. Hawley had experience in the crop insurance industry, having previously

worked as a crop insurance adjuster for NCCI and another crop insurance company

before starting his own crop insurance agency, Hawley Insurance, Inc., in 1994. As

NCCI’s agent, Hawley sold Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (“MPCI”) policies to various

individuals, receiving commissions from NCCI on those policies. MPCI policies are

reinsured by the FCIC and offer coverage for crop losses. 7 C.F.R. §§ 400.701,

457.172. To obtain MPCI, the farmer must have a bona fide interest, or “insurable

interest,” in the crop at the time coverage begins and must submit an application for

insurance through an insurance agent. 7 C.F.R. §§ 400.651, 654(a). Once the

insurance company accepts the application and issues an insurance policy to the

farmer, the farmer must report and certify each year to the insurance company that he

has an interest in the insured crop. Id. § 400.654(d). These reports are termed

“acreage reports.” Id.

In February 2000, Hawley signed and submitted to NCCI a crop insurance

application in the names of brothers Sydney and Stanley Windquist for crops in South

Dakota. The Windquists, however, were ineligible to receive FCIC-reinsured

coverage, because they had no insurable interest in the crops. The Windquists

certified that they had an interest in the crops, and in June 2000, Hawley signed and

submitted their acreage reports to NCCI. Subsequently, the Windquists filed claims

with NCCI for losses to the insured crops, and NCCI paid the Windquists for those

losses. The FCIC ultimately reimbursed NCCI for those payments and for premium

subsidies on the Windquist policy, in the amount of $145,540. The government

prosecuted the Windquists for federal crop insurance fraud, and the case was resolved

when the Windquists admitted that they did not have an insurable interest in the crops

and entered into pretrial diversion agreements.
-4-

A similar sequence of events occurred in 2001. In March of that year, Hawley

signed and submitted to NCCI an application for crop insurance in the name of Ed

Marshall for land in South Dakota. Hawley received Marshall’s application from

another individual, so Hawley never witnessed Marshall sign the application.

Marshall eventually admitted to the government as part of a civil settlement agreement

that he never signed the application, and that Hawley told him in April 2001 that he

was insured on land in South Dakota. In June 2001, Hawley signed and submitted to

NCCI acreage reports for the crop land in Marshall’s name, and Marshall eventually

submitted claims to NCCI for losses to the insured crops. NCCI paid Marshall for

those losses, and FCIC reimbursed NCCI for those payments and for premium

subsidies in the amount of $159,960.

The government learned of Hawley’s actions, and in October 2006, brought a

civil action against him in the district court. The complaint alleged that Hawley

knowingly caused ineligible farmers to obtain MPCI coverage and to receive

payments from NCCI, payments which the FCIC reimbursed. The government sought

treble damages and civil penalties under three subsections of the FCA, 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729(a)(1)-(3) (2006), amended by Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009,

Pub. L. No. 111-21, § 4(a)(1), 123 Stat. 1617, 1621-22 (2009). Section 3729(a)(1)

renders liable any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an

officer or employee of the United States Government . . . a false or fraudulent claim

for payment or approval.” Section 3729(a)(2) imposes liability on any person who

“knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to

get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government.” And section

3729(a)(3) makes liable any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by

getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid.” The government also asserted an

Iowa common-law claim of fraud.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In April 2008, the

district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hawley on the government’s
-5-

§ 3729(a)(1) claim, but denied the motions on the remaining claims and set them for

trial. United States v. Hawley, 544 F. Supp. 2d 787 (N.D. Iowa 2008). The court

concluded that the plain language of § 3729(a)(1) requires proof that Hawley

“presented or caused to be presented” a claim “to an officer or employee of the United

States Government,” not merely to NCCI. Id. at 806. In the court’s view, the

government had alleged and proved only that Hawley presented, or caused to be

presented, false claims to NCCI, and thus the government, as a matter of law, could

not establish the element of presentment. Id. As to the § 3729(a)(2) and (a)(3) claims,

the court concluded that neither provision required “presentment” to the United States

government, and that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the falsity of

the insurance applications and acreage reports, Hawley’s knowledge of such falsity,

and Hawley’s participation in a conspiracy to get false claims paid by the government.

Id. at 809-11. These and other similar fact questions, the court held, also precluded

summary judgment on the common-law fraud claim. Id. at 813-15.

In June 2008, five days before trial was scheduled to begin, the court sua sponte

issued an order cancelling trial and granting summary judgment in favor of Hawley

on the three remaining claims. United States v. Hawley, 566 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N.D.

Iowa 2008). The court concluded that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in

Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 128 S. Ct. 2123 (2008), issued

earlier that month, the government’s remaining FCA claims failed as a matter of law.

Turning first to the § 3729(a)(2) claim, the court noted that under Allison Engine, the

government was required to prove that Hawley intended the government to rely on the

false documents as a condition of reimbursing NCCI. Id. at 2130. The court found

that because the government had failed to make that showing, and because there was

no evidence that the false documents were ever forwarded to or approved by the

government, Hawley could not be liable under § 3729(a)(2). 566 F. Supp. 2d at 926-

27. The court next addressed the government’s § 3729(a)(3) claim, noting that it was

premised on an agreement or conspiracy to engage in the same conduct that the

government alleged violated § 3729(a)(2). Borrowing its analysis under § 3729(a)(2),
-6-

the court concluded that the government’s evidence showed at most that Hawley and

his alleged coconspirators agreed to defraud NCCI, not the government. Id. at 927-28.

Finally, repudiating its earlier April 2008 order, the court determined that the

common-law fraud claim also failed, on the ground that there was no evidence that

Hawley had reason to expect that the misrepresentations would reach the government,

or that those misrepresentations would influence the government’s decision to

reimburse NCCI. Id. at 932.

The government appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hawley

on its FCA and fraud claims. On May 20, 2009, after briefing and oral argument in

this case, Congress amended the language of § 3729(a) and redesignated subsections

(a)(1) through (a)(3) as (a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(C). The government acknowledges

that the amendments to subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) do not affect the analysis, but

contends that the amendment of subsection (a)(2), codified at § 3729(a)(1)(B), should

be applied in this case.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence and

drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government, the

nonmoving party. Green v. City of St. Louis, 507 F.3d 662, 666 (8th Cir. 2007).

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,

and Hawley is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

II.

Section 3729(a)(1) provides that any person who “knowingly presents, or

causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States

Government . . . a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” is liable to the

United States for civil penalties and treble damages. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), amended

by Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-21, § 4(a)(1), 123

Stat. 1617, 1621-22 (2009). A “claim” is defined as:
2

Congress amended § 3729(a)(1) and the definition of “claim” in the recent

amendments to the FCA. Pub. L. No. 111-21, § 4(a)(2), 123 Stat. 1617, 1622-23

(2009). This case is not governed by those changes, as they apply only to conduct

after May 20, 2009.

-7-

any request or demand . . . for money or property which is made to a

contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the United States Government

provides any portion of the money or property which is requested or

demanded, or if the Government will reimburse such contractor, grantee,

or other recipient for any portion of the money or property which is

requested or demanded.

Id. § 3729(c).2

 Thus, under the plain language of § 3729(a)(1), claims must be

presented to an officer or employee of the government before liability can attach.

Allison Engine, 128 S. Ct. at 2129; United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp.,

380 F.3d 488, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J.). But a “claim” need not be made

directly to the government; it may include a “request or demand that was originally

made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient of federal funds and then forwarded

to the Government.” Allison Engine, 128 S. Ct. at 2129 n.1 (internal quotation

omitted).

The government argues that there is a submissible case on its claim under

§ 3729(a)(1), because a jury could find that Hawley caused false claims to be

presented to the FCIC. The government points to the following sequence of events:

(1) Hawley signed and submitted crop insurance applications and acreage reports in

the names of farmers who were not eligible for such policies; (2) NCCI issued

federally reinsured policies to those farmers on the basis of those documents; (3) the

farmers filed claims with NCCI for losses to the insured crops; (4) NCCI paid the

farmers for the claimed losses; and (5) NCCI, in turn, submitted electronic requests

for reimbursement to the FCIC in the amounts that NCCI paid to the farmers. This

sequence, the government asserts, involved two sets of “claims” within the meaning

of the FCA. The first encompassed the claims for payment submitted by the ineligible
-8-

farmers to NCCI, and the second included the claims for reimbursement submitted

electronically by NCCI to the FCIC. According to the government, the second set was

presented to the FCIC, and Hawley caused those claims to be presented.

Hawley responds that the government is raising a new argument on appeal by

identifying the electronic reimbursement demands from NCCI to the FCIC as the

“claims” that were presented to the FCIC. Hawley says that the “claims” pleaded and

argued by the government in the district court were the claims for payment submitted

to NCCI, not the electronic requests for reimbursement from NCCI to the FCIC.

Alternatively, Hawley asserts that even if the government preserved a contention that

the electronic reimbursement demands were the “claims” presented to the FCIC, it has

failed to produce evidence of those electronic demands.

We are satisfied that the government adequately preserved its argument that

NCCI’s reimbursement demands were the “claims” presented to the government.

There are sufficient references in the government’s complaint and summary judgment

papers to assure us that the government is not unfairly switching gears on appeal. The

complaint made clear that the FCIC reimbursed NCCI for the payments it paid to the

Windquists and Marshall, thus implying that NCCI presented information related to

those payments to the FCIC to trigger the reimbursement. The government argued in

its response to Hawley’s motion for summary judgment that Hawley “submitted the

false claims to NCCI,” and that NCCI “submitted the claims directly to the Federal

Crop Insurance Corporation,” calling this “‘presentment’ in its purest form.” In the

government’s reply to Hawley’s opposition to the government’s summary judgment

motion, the government asserted that it was “undisputed that NCCI submitted [the

false documents] for crop losses” to the FCIC for payment. And in that same reply,

the government asserted that false documents were “submitted to NCCI and the loss

data was remitted to the government electronically for reimbursement.” In view of

these references, we are satisfied that the government is not raising a new theory on

appeal.
-9-

The government has the burden to prove that Hawley presented, or caused to

be presented, a false claim to the United States government. Totten, 380 F.3d at 490.

The FCIC is a wholly owned government corporation, and the parties do not dispute

that if false claims were presented to the FCIC, they were presented to the

government. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we

conclude that the record demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether

claims were transmitted electronically by NCCI to the FCIC, and thus presented to the

government. 

Calvin Brewer, an official of the United States Department of Agriculture,

testified in his deposition about the reimbursement system between private insurance

companies and the FCIC. Brewer explained that after the insurance company assesses

the loss to the insured crops, the company writes a check to the farmer for a certain

amount. The check is tied to a “loss clearing account” in the company’s name. The

company then submits data regarding the loss amount to the FCIC through an

electronic “data acceptance system.” According to Brewer, once the company submits

the data to the system electronically:

they look at a couple [of] minor edits, financial edits they call them, that

there is a policy that you’re trying to claim a loss on and that the detail

loss records add to the total loss record. If that happens, then . . . escrow

will pick up – the escrow system will pick up that request the next day

and process it and you’ll be – we’ll actually generate a payment and do

a[n] [electronic funds transfer] to transfer the money to an escrow

account in the [FCIC’s] name.

Brewer testified that at this point, the money is in an escrow account in the FCIC’s

name. When the farmer goes to the bank to cash the check he received from the

company, the bank transfers the total amount of the check from the FCIC’s escrow

account to the company’s loss clearing account to cover the loss amount. At some

point after this transfer takes place, the FCIC and the insurance company undergo an
-10-

annual settlement to determine what percentage, if any, of the loss reimbursed by the

FCIC should instead be borne by the company under the terms of the SRA.

In addition to Brewer’s testimony, the SRA mandates that the company submit

“accurate and detailed contract data” to the FCIC through the electronic data

acceptance system. The SRA also requires that “[a]ll reports submitted for

reimbursement must be certified.”

We conclude that this evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact

regarding whether Hawley caused NCCI to present claims for reimbursement to the

FCIC. There is enough in the record for a factfinder reasonably to conclude that the

requests for payment originally submitted to NCCI were forwarded in some form to

the FCIC. See Allison Engine, 128 S. Ct. at 2129 n.1. Brewer’s testimony indicates

that an electronic data communication from NCCI to the FCIC triggers a release of

funds from the FCIC to an escrow account at a local bank from which a farmer can

obtain payment on his claim. The SRA indicates that the NCCI also must submit

certified reports for reimbursement to the FCIC. Brewer testified that there is an

annual settlement process in which the government determines whether any of the

payments made by the FCIC should be recouped from the insurance company, thus

suggesting that the claims process and final “approval” by the government is not

completed until after that reconciliation. Thus, while the government might well have

amplified the summary-judgment record regarding presentment, this is not a case in

which there has been “a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element”

of the government’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

Accordingly, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of fact on the question whether

Hawley caused presentment of a claim, and that the government’s § 3729(a)(1)

allegation should not have been dismissed based on lack of evidence of presentment.
3

The parties do dispute whether retroactive application of § 3729(a)(1)(B)

would violate the Constitution. Hawley argues that applying the new provision to his

conduct would constitute retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto

Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, because the treble damages provided for in the FCA,

-11-

III.

The government next argues that the district court erred in granting summary

judgment in favor of Hawley on its claim under § 3729(a)(2). Section 3729(a)(2)

imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made

or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved

by the Government.” As discussed, after oral argument in this case, Congress

amended and recodified § 3729(a)(2). The amended statute makes liable any person

who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement

material to a false or fraudulent claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). According to the

government, the amended statute removes the element requiring proof of intent to

defraud the government, and thus strengthens the government’s case for reversal on

the § 3729(a)(2) claim. The amended provision, redesignated as § 3729(a)(1)(B),

applies to “all claims under the False Claims Act” pending on or after June 7, 2008.

Pub. L. No. 111-21, § 4(f)(1), 123 Stat. 1617, 1625 (2009).

Several courts have concluded, however, that § 3729(a)(1)(B) does not apply

to all claims in lawsuits that are pending after June 7, 2008, but only to “claims”

within the meaning of the FCA that were still pending as of that date. E.g., Hopper

v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 588 F.3d 1318, 1327 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009); United States ex rel.

Burroughs v. Cent. Ark. Dev. Council, No. 4:08CV2757, 2010 WL 1875580, at * 2

(E.D. Ark. May 10, 2010); United States v. Sci Applications Int’l Corp., 653 F. Supp.

2d 87, 107 (D.D.C. 2009). On that view, the new statute does not apply to this case,

because any claim for payment made to the FCIC had been resolved prior to June 7,

2008. The parties have not addressed this question of statutory interpretation, and we

find it unnecessary to resolve it.3

 We conclude that the government’s claim under
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), are essentially punitive or criminal in nature. Hawley also

contends that retroactive application of § 3729(a)(1)(B) would violate the Due Process

Clause, because it would deprive defendants of fair notice that their conduct violates

the criminal law. The government, citing Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93

(1997), responds that the Ex Post Facto Clause applies only to criminal or penal

provisions, and the FCA is by its terms a civil statute mandating civil penalties. The

government also argues that retroactive application would not violate the Due Process

Clause, because the retroactivity is rationally related to a legitimate government

purpose. If the government elects on remand to pursue retroactive application of

§ 3729(a)(1)(B), then the district court should consider the statutory and constitutional

questions in the first instance.

-12-

§ 3729(a)(2) is sufficient to survive summary judgment without regard to the

amendment.

The district court ruled that the § 3729(a)(2) claim was not submissible in light

of Allison Engine, because there was no evidence that Hawley intended that the false

insurance applications and acreage reports would be material to the government’s

decision to pay or approve the false claims. In Allison Engine, two shipyards

contracted with the United States Navy to build destroyers in accordance with military

standards. 128 S. Ct. at 2126. The shipyards then contracted with three

subcontractors, including Allison Engine, to assemble and manufacture certain parts

used in the destroyers. Id. at 2126-27. All of the money used to pay the

subcontractors ultimately came from the United States Government. Id. at 2127. Two

qui tam relators sued the subcontractors to recover damages under § 3729(a)(1),

(a)(2), and (a)(3), alleging that they submitted false invoices to the shipyards and

fraudulently sought payment for work that did not comply with the specified military

standards. Id. The court of appeals held that the plaintiffs established liability merely

by showing that “[t]he false statement’s use . . . result[ed] in obtaining or getting

payment or approval of the claim,” United States ex rel. Sanders v. Allison Engine

Co., 471 F.3d 610, 621 (6th Cir. 2006), or that “government money was used to pay

the false or fraudulent claim.” Id. at 622.
-13-

The Supreme Court reversed and held that to establish liability under

§ 3729(a)(2) and (a)(3), an FCA plaintiff must prove that the “defendant intended that

the false record or statement be material to the Government’s decision to pay or

approve the false claim.” Allison Engine,128 S. Ct. at 2126. This is so, the Court

explained, because the phrase “to get” in the statute “denotes purpose,” and so “a

person must have the purpose of getting a false or fraudulent claim ‘paid or approved

by the Government.’” Id. at 2128 (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2)). “Therefore, a

subcontractor violates § 3729(a)(2) if the subcontractor submits a false statement to

the prime contractor intending for the statement to be used by the prime contractor to

get the Government to pay its claim.” Id. at 2130. By contrast, “[i]f a subcontractor

or another defendant makes a false statement to a private entity and does not intend

the Government to rely on that false statement as a condition of payment, the

statement is not made with the purpose of inducing payment of a false claim ‘by the

Government.’” Id. In the latter situation, the “direct link between the false statement

and the Government’s decision to pay or approve a false claim is too attenuated to

establish liability.” Id.

Applying the reasoning of Allison Engine, we conclude that the government

made a sufficient showing of intent under § 3729(a)(2) to survive summary judgment.

The record shows that Hawley had extensive experience in the crop insurance

industry. He worked as a crop insurance adjuster for NCCI and another insurance

agency before starting his own crop insurance agency in 1994. From 1994 to 2001,

he worked as a private crop insurance agent for NCCI, selling federally reinsured crop

insurance policies. He also worked occasionally as a teacher for NCCI, instructing

insurance agents about insurance coverage. In his sworn affidavit, he averred that

“[m]y familiarity is with crop insurance.”

Drawing all justifiable inferences in the government’s favor, we believe a

reasonable jury could find that Hawley intended, based on his experience selling

federally reinsured crop insurance for NCCI, that NCCI would transmit a farmer’s
-14-

claim to the FCIC for reimbursement, and the FCIC would rely on that claim as a

condition of payment. Cf. United States v. Hawley, 544 F. Supp. 2d 787, 815 (N.D.

Iowa 2008). This sequence closely resembles the subcontractor analogy described in

Allison Engine, namely, that a subcontractor is liable under § 3729(a)(2) if he submits

a false statement to a prime contractor intending for the statement to be used by the

prime contractor to get the government to pay the prime contractor’s claim. Id. at

2130.

Allison Engine suggests that a defendant should answer under the statute for

“the natural, ordinary and reasonable consequences of his conduct,” id. (internal

quotation omitted), and a reasonable factfinder typically may infer that a person

intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts. See Willis v. State Farm Fire

& Cas. Co., 219 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Martin, 772 F.2d

1442, 1445-46 (8th Cir. 1985). The record here creates a genuine issue for trial on

whether Hawley knew that a natural and foreseeable consequence of his submission

of false insurance applications and acreage reports to NCCI was that NCCI would use

those submissions to get the FCIC to pay NCCI’s claims, and that Hawley intended

these natural and foreseeable consequences. We therefore conclude that summary

judgment is not warranted on the government’s claim under § 3729(a)(2).

We next address whether the government offered sufficient proof to survive

summary judgment on its § 3729(a)(3) claim. The analysis of § 3729(a)(3) is similar

to the analysis under § 3729(a)(2), as both provisions require evidence that the

defendant intended the government to rely on the false statement as a condition of

payment. Allison Engine, 128 S. Ct. at 2130. Section 3729(a)(3) also requires

evidence of an agreement to defraud the government. Id. The district court

determined in its first order on motions for summary judgment that genuine issues of

material fact remained as to whether Hawley and others knowingly agreed to

participate in a scheme to allow ineligible farmers to obtain and make claims against

federal crop insurance policies. The court did not repudiate this conclusion in its
-15-

order cancelling trial, and Hawley does not argue that there is insufficient evidence

of an agreement to defraud the FCIC. He contends only that the government cannot

prevail under § 3729(a)(3) for the same reason that it cannot prevail under

§ 3729(a)(2) – namely, that Hawley did not intend to defraud the government. Having

rejected that contention, we conclude that summary judgment is not warranted on the

government’s § 3729(a)(3) claim.

IV.

The government’s final contention is that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment in favor of Hawley on its common-law claim of fraud. Under

Iowa law, “[t]he elements of fraud are: (1) a material misrepresentation (2) made

knowingly (scienter) (3) with intent to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting

(4) upon which the plaintiff justifiably relies (5) with damages.” Beeck v. Kapalis,

302 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Iowa 1981). The district court concluded that the government

could not satisfy the fourth element of the cause of action, because the government

could not show that Hawley intended or had reason to expect that the false statements

would be communicated to the FCIC, or that those statements would influence the

FCIC’s decision to reimburse NCCI. The government disputes that conclusion,

arguing that Hawley plainly had reason to expect, based on his experience, that a

consequence of his conduct was that NCCI would seek reimbursement from the FCIC,

and that NCCI would necessarily represent to the FCIC that the underlying insurance

policies were valid. We agree with the government.

In Clark v. McDaniel, 546 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 1996), the Supreme Court of

Iowa discussed “justifiable reliance” in the context of fraudulent misrepresentations

made to third parties. Id. at 593-94. The Court expressly adopted section 533 of the

Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), id. at 594, which states:
-16-

[t]he maker of a fraudulent misrepresentation is subject to liability for

pecuniary loss to another who acts in justifiable reliance upon it if the

misrepresentation, although not made directly to the other, is made to a

third person and the maker intends or has reason to expect that its terms

will be repeated or its substance communicated to the other, and that it

will influence his conduct in the transaction or type of transaction

involved.

Id. at 593 (internal quotation omitted). The court elaborated on the “reason to expect”

standard, explaining that “[t]he maker of the misrepresentation must have information

that would lead a reasonable man to conclude that there is an especial likelihood that

it will reach [third] persons and . . . influence their conduct.” Id. (internal quotation

omitted).

We conclude that the record creates genuine issues of material fact regarding

whether Hawley had reason to expect that the representations set forth in false

insurance applications and acreage reports that he signed and submitted would reach

the FCIC and influence the FCIC’s decision to reimburse NCCI. As noted, Hawley

had extensive experience as a crop insurance adjuster and private agent selling

federally reinsured crop insurance policies in NCCI’s name. Based on that

experience, there are fact questions as to whether he knew that NCCI would

communicate false representations to the FCIC, because NCCI, when seeking

reimbursement, would necessarily represent to the FCIC that the claims arose from

persons eligible for crop insurance. Indeed, a basic premise of the SRA between

NCCI and the FCIC is that NCCI will insure only eligible individuals, and that the

FCIC will reimburse only valid claims. Thus, although the insurance applications and

acreage reports were not themselves forwarded to the FCIC, a jury could find that

Hawley had reason to expect that the representations included in those documents –

namely, that the farmers were eligible for insurance – would be passed on to the FCIC

by NCCI. On the same basis, it is reasonable to infer that Hawley had reason to

expect that the FCIC would rely on the farmers’ purported eligibility in deciding to
-17-

reimburse NCCI. Accordingly, summary judgment is not warranted on the

government’s common-law fraud claim.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary

judgment on the government’s claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3),

and under the Iowa common law of fraud, and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

______________________________