Source: http://ace-insurance-litigation.com/ace-ina-litigation/case/ace-american-insurance-company-et-al-v-federal-crop-insurance-corporation-et
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:20:54+00:00

Document:
2009-10 and are effective from July 1, 2010 through at least June 30, 2015.
terms and conditions of the 2011 SRA during the five year applicable period, and 7 U.S.C.
changes in the financial terms and conditions of the 2011 SRA would have on the AIPs.
RMA pursuant to the administrative exhaustion requirement of 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) and 7 C.F.R.
instituted an appeal before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”).
("CBCA Order"). A true and correct copy of the CBCA Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
SRAs and matters arising thereunder.
the 2013 and subsequent SRAs and matters arising thereunder.
2011 and each succeeding, substantially identical SRA.
subsequent SRAs and matters arising thereunder.
the 2011 and each succeeding, substantially identical SRA.
executed the 2011 and each succeeding, substantially identical SRA.
and each succeeding, substantially identical SRA and matters arising thereunder.
sustained damages, as a result of the acts about which they complain herein.
administers and oversees all programs authorized by FCIC.
the Federal Crop Insurance Act, U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.(“FCIA”).
the government of the United States. 7 U.S.C. § 1506(l).
pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 1506(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
FCIC and having pursued appeals thereof through the CBCA.
plaintiff resides or is engaged in business."
under terms and conditions prescribed by FCIC.
31.Only insurance companies approved by FCIC may offer Federal crop insurance.
and on other terms and conditions established by FCIC. 7 U.S.C. §§ 1508(d) & 1508(k).
than 1.0. 7 U.S.C. § 1508(d).
program is administered in an appropriate and efficient manner.
underwriting risks mandated by FCIC at premium rates set by FCIC.
36.Each Plaintiff is an approved insurance provider as defined by the FCIA, 7 U.S.C.
§ 1502(b)(2), and each writes Federal crop insurance coverages approved by FCIC.
selling and servicing crop insurance policies to the nation’s agricultural producers.
statements and assurances made by FCIC.
can result in lower A&O expense reimbursement.
AIPs for the costs incurred by them in selling and servicing Federal crop insurance policies.
agricultural producers who suffered covered losses.
that each approved insurance provider can earn.
shifted to FCIC, the higher the percentage of premium that is ceded to FCIC.
year, which starts July 1 of the same calendar year.
that will be employed by FCIC to set and adjust premium rates going forward.
economic analysis of entering into the SRA.
ability to sell and service Federal crop insurance policies.
in exchange for the same premium they previously received.
be analyzed and effectively anticipated by AIPs.
decision making with respect to risk retention.
central financial aspect of the agreement.
the 2011 SRA remain reasonably static.
Study, these changes are outside the scope of the current SRA negotiations.
risk, or achieve a competitive rate of return.
was being negotiated, because FCIC had commissioned a study of its rate setting methodology.
with indefinite or illusory financial terms.
negotiated for the 2011-15 reinsurance years.
effective through the 2015 reinsurance year in accordance with 7 U.S.C. § 1508(k)(8).
little chance for that to happen).
and losses or A&O subsidies in the program.
using a longer time horizon is both prudent and more actuarially sound.
study to significantly change company profitability after an SRA was finalized."
conducted relating to rating methodology.
be made to the ratemaking methodology.
SRA, consistent with the rate setting methodology historically used in the past three decades.
group that had completed Study 1 (“Study 2”).
was negative, and AIPs were told that new rates were “loaded” and ready to be implemented.
changes applied to other crops compound and increase this amount significantly.
represented by FCIC/RMA that such would not occur) at the time the 2011 SRA was executed.
methodology for the 2012 crop year and thereafter.
new rate setting methodology was contrary to the provisions of the SRA.
denying that such adoption was contrary to the terms of the SRA.
82.On June 27, 2012, Plaintiffs appealed that determination to the CBCA.
before the CBCA. FCIC included a 243 page brief and thousands of exhibits with its motion.
declarations attesting to the facts as recited herein.
other than by way of Plaintiffs’ declarations.
adoption of the new ratemaking methodology did not breach the 2011 SRA.
procedures established by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e).
jurisdiction against FCIC. 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e); 7 U.S.C. § 1506(d).
89.AIPs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88.
90.AIPs are each signatories to the 2011 through 2013 SRAs with FCIC.
sell and service crop insurance policies to producers of agricultural commodities.
dealing.Centex Corp. v. United States, 395 F.3d. 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
of each party to a contract to act reasonably.
manner that AIPs were specifically told would not occur.
96.AIPs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88.
changes to FCIC’s rate setting methodology were being contemplated.
speak responded that no material methodology changes were being considered.
changes would negatively impact the AIPs financially.
induced the AIPs into agreeing to the financial terms of the 2011 SRA.
103.AIPs reasonably relied on the statements and representations made by FCIC.
107.AIPs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88.
policies to producers of agricultural commodities under the 2011 SRA.
representation that such changes would not be made.
the 2011 SRA was signed.
services under the financial terms and conditions set forth in the 2011 SRA.
114.AIPs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88.
incorporated into each financial term and condition of the SRA.
financial terms and conditions of the SRA.
gain calculated at the rates subsequently implemented after adoption of the new methodology.
121.AIPs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88.
financial condition of the reinsured companies and the availability of private reinsurance."
123.The 2011 SRA is a reinsurance agreement between FCIC and the AIPs.
methodology would have on the AIPs.
changes were implemented, FCIC violated 7 U.S.C. § 1508(k)(3).
127.The AIPs suffered significant damage as a result of the violation of 7 U.S.C.
128.AIPs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88.
premium rates versus historical rates.
it could be implied that AIPs assumed the risk of change.
premium rates based on the changed methodology.
134.AIPs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88.
breach of the 2011 SRA or violation of 7 U.S.C. § 1508(k).
that RMA was authorized by statute to adjust premium rates.
in favor of Plaintiffs and is otherwise not in accordance with the law.
material facts in dispute and is therefore procedurally flawed.
changes as evidenced by the uncontroverted facts amounted to a breach of the SRA.
Order. In its Order, the Board failed to substantively address Plaintiffs’ claims.
contract breach as a result of the statutorily authorized action.
limited to breach of contract actions. It does not extend to statutory violations.
erroneous as a matter of law.
Trial by jury is hereby demanded for all issues so triable.

References: § 6912
 § 1501
 § 1506
 § 1506
 § 1331
 § 1508

§ 1502
 § 1508
 § 6912
 § 6912
 § 1506
 v. 
 § 1508
 § 1508