throbber
Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`Dustin A. Martinsen, OSB No. 144907
`Butler & Looney, P.C.
`P.O. Box 430
`Vale, OR 9791
`Phone: (541) 473-3111
`Fax: (541) 473-3731
`Email: dustin@butlerlooney.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Nathan J. Arnold WSBA No. 45356
`Arnold & Jacobowitz PLLC
`2701 First Avenue, Suite 200
`Seattle, WA 98121
`(206) 769-3759; Fax (206) 866-3244
`Nathan@CAJlawyers.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
`PENDLETON DIVISION
`
`FROERER FARMS, Inc., an Oregon corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01035
`
`COMPLAINT
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`AGRICULTURE, and FEDERAL CROP
`INSURANCE CORPORATION,
`
`
`) ) )
`
`
`Defendants.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. After faithfully paying federal crop insurance policy premiums and complying with all
`
`other relevant policy terms and conditions, Plaintiff, Froerer Farms, Inc. (“Froerer Farms”), was
`
`denied claim benefits due to arbitrary and capricious agency interpretations which purported to let
`
`the carrier retroactively void the policy because Froerer Farms’ authorized representative was
`
`supposedly incompetent to sign. Froerer Farms comes to this Court for a declaration of its rights.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, VENUE, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`COMPLAINT - 1
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2. Plaintiff Froerer Farms, Inc. is an Oregon corporation doing business within the District of
`
`Oregon, with its principal place of business in Malheur County.
`
`3. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (“FCIC”) is a wholly owned government
`
`corporation managed by the Risk Management Agency (“RMA”) of the United States Department
`
`of Agriculture (“USDA”).
`
`4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`5. Venue lies properly in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).
`
`6. Trial by jury is hereby demanded.
`
`III.
`
`FACTS
`
`7. Congress passed the Federal Crop Insurance Act (“FCIA”) in 1938, and enacted significant
`
`updates in 1980 and 1994.
`
`8. The purpose of the FCIA was and is to protect farmers from vagaries of the market and
`
`nature and to encourage innovation.
`
`9. It was not Congress’s intent for hyper-technical agency regulations and carrier-friendly
`
`interpretations to provide windfalls to insurance companies.
`
`10.
`
`Under the FCIA, crop insurance programs are administered by the FCIC and RMA,
`
`which have authorized several approved insurance providers (“AIPs”) to issue policies under terms
`
`and conditions approved by the FCIC, subject to FCIC regulations and guidance.
`
`11.
`
`In 2016, by corporate resolution, Froerer Farms authorized Chase Froerer to pursue
`
`crop insurance on its behalf.
`
`12. Froerer Farms also executed a Power of Attorney form to confirm Chase Froerer’s
`
`authority. Anticipating that it would purchase insurance from Rain and Hail L.L.C., Froerer Farms
`
`specified that the power of attorney was “in connection with crop insurance polic(ies) issued or to
`
`COMPLAINT - 2
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`be issued through Rain and Hail, L.L.C.,” but also specified that he was empowered to, among
`
`other things, “make application(s) for insurance” on Froerer Farms’ behalf.
`
`13. Froerer Farms’ broker ultimately directed Mr. Froerer in submitting an application on
`
`behalf of Froerer Farms to Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) instead.
`
`14. Hudson accepted the application and issued a Whole Farm Revenue Protection crop
`
`insurance policy (the “Policy”) to Froerer Farms.
`
`15. In 2019, after two years of faithfully paying premiums, submitting reports as required,
`
`and substantially performing all other obligations under the Policy, Froerer Farms submitted a
`
`claim for loss of revenue to Hudson under the Policy.
`
`16. On or about June 17, 2019, Hudson rejected the claim, alleging that the Power of
`
`Attorney had not authorized Chase Froerer to execute the crop insurance application and that it
`
`was retroactively void.
`
`17. Froerer Farms initiated arbitration against Hudson.
`
`18. Pursuant to Policy terms, the parties to that arbitration jointly sought determinations from
`
`FCIC as to the interpretation of the Policy and related regulatory guidance, particularly the FCIC’s
`
`General Standards Handbook (the “Handbook”), which provides standards for AIPs’
`
`administration of crop insurance policies.
`
`19. The most relevant provisions interpreted by USDA were WFRP Policy Section 4(h) and
`
`Handbook §§ 854 and 855, reproduced below in most relevant part:
`
`WFRP Policy Section 4(h) states:
`
`4. Life of Policy, Termination, and Cancellation
`***
`
`(h) Any person may sign any document relative to crop insurance coverage on
`behalf of any other person covered by such a policy, provided that the person
`
`COMPLAINT - 3
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`has a properly executed power of attorney or such other legally sufficient
`document authorizing such person to sign. You are still responsible for the
`accuracy of all information provided on your behalf and may be subject to the
`consequences in section l5(j), and any other consequences, including
`administrative, criminal or civil sanctions, if any information has been
`misreported.
`
`General Standards Handbook
`
`854 Signatures
`A. Requirement
`Any crop insurance document requiring a signature must be signed by the
`person whose signature is required (e.g., the applicant must sign the
`Application). A POA or other legally sufficient document is required for any
`person who is authorized to sign on behalf of the required person. If the
`applicant is a minor, the parent or court-appointed guardian must sign all
`documents that require a signature unless the minor has been legally
`emancipated.
`B. Acceptable Signature Types
`Acceptable signatures for crop insurance include the:
`(1) signature of the required person (e.g., applicant, insured, or grantor);
`(2) signature of the authorized representative (or attorney-in-fact) granted by a
`POA; and
`(3) signature of the authorized representative granted by a legally sufficient
`document.
`
`855. Power of Attorney
`Insureds may grant a third-party the authority to sign crop insurance documents
`on their behalf if a legally executed POA is provided to the AIP.
`A. POA Types
`(1) A POA that is executed in accordance with the laws of the state of execution
`is acceptable for crop insurance purposes. Such POA must be in writing and
`specify the powers granted to the authorized representative by the grantor. A
`POA is executed when it is signed.
`….
`B. POA Requirements
`
`(1) Authority
`POAs which grant authority to sign contracts and legally bind the grantor(s) are
`sufficient for crop insurance purposes. The POA must specify the person
`authorized, the period of authorization, and powers granted.
`
`
`Exception: Oral or open powers of attorney are not acceptable. An oral
`or open POA is a POA that does not specify who the authorized
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COMPLAINT - 4
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`representative receiving the power is at the time of execution.
`
`
`
`20. The term “legally sufficient document” is not defined in the Policy or Handbook.
`
`21. After receiving the initial claim denial, Froerer Farms executed an additional Power of
`
`Attorney to Chase Froerer, which expressly authorized him retroactively to “negotiate, acquire,
`
`and manage all matters involving insurance policies” for Froerer Farms.
`
`22. Despite Froerer Farms’ express written corporate resolution and the two executed
`
`Powers of Attorney, FCIC interpreted its Policy and Handbook adversely to Froerer Farms and in
`
`favor of Hudson in every particular.
`
`23. Under the FCIC’s interpretations, Hudson was not obliged to honor Froerer Farms’
`
`claim and the Policy was void ab initio.
`
`24. Copies of the FCIC’s interpretations, from which review is sought herein, are attached
`
`hereto as Exhibits A–F.
`
`25. The FCIC’s interpretations were plainly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious in at least
`
`the following points:
`
`a. The FCIC reads ¶ 4(h) of the Policy, which on its face plainly applies only
`
`to submissions by already-covered insured persons, to apply to
`
`applications for policies by uncovered persons. Based on
`
`this
`
`interpretation, the FCIC wrongly concluded that an applicant cannot ratify
`
`the actions of an intended agent with a subsequently executed Power of
`
`Attorney.
`
`b. The FCIC reads “other legally sufficient document” to mean, as to a
`
`corporate applicant, only its Articles of Incorporation, even though
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COMPLAINT - 5
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`nothing in the Policy or Handbook suggests that restriction and in fact
`
`expressly allows authorization through all other legally sufficient
`
`documents.
`
`c. The FCIC reads ¶ 4(h) of the Policy and §§ 854 and 855 of the Handbook
`
`to go to the validity of the Policy as against the AIP, so that a Policy
`
`application, signed by an authorized agent of the applicant whose
`
`authorization has some defect in form according to the FCIC’s other
`
`erroneous readings, is entirely ineffective and void ab initio, regardless of
`
`the intent of both the applicant and the AIP to be bound, and even though
`
`nothing in the Policy or Handbook suggests that the result of such an
`
`immaterial failure would have this effect, and even though the signature-
`
`authority guidance provisions are plainly intended for the benefit of
`
`farmers, not of the AIP.
`
`26.
`
`In arriving at these determinations, the agency relied on factors which Congress has not
`
`intended it to consider.
`
`27.
`
`In arriving at these determinations, the agency entirely failed to consider an important
`
`aspect of the problem.
`
`28.
`
`In arriving at these determinations, the agency offered an explanation for its decision
`
`that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.
`
`29. These determinations are so implausible that they could not be ascribed to a difference
`
`in view or the product of agency expertise.
`
`
`
`30. Froerer Farms sought review of these interpretations by the USDA National Appeal
`
`COMPLAINT - 6
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`Division (“NAD”).
`
`31. The NAD issued a determination of non-appealability of these issues.
`
`32. No further level of administrative review exists and Froerer Farms has exhausted
`
`administrative remedies.
`
`IV. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`33. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
`
`34. Froerer Farms is entitled under 5 U.S.C. § 702 to judicial review of the FCIC
`
`interpretations.
`
`35. The FCIC interpretations are plainly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and run counter to
`
`the plain intent of Congress and the plain meaning of the FCIC’s own regulation and guidance.
`
`36. The Court should reverse the FCIC interpretations.
`
`37.
`
`If necessary, Froerer Farms is also entitled under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to a declaration of
`
`its rights, where an actual controversy exists between the parties as to the meaning of the Policy,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Handbook, and any incorporated regulations, and the rights of Froerer Farms thereunder.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor as follows:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A. Reversing the FCIC as to its interpretations attached hereto;
`
`B. Declaring the Policy valid and effective;
`
`C. Any other relief, including attorneys’ fees, the Court judges to be proper, permitted under
`
`FRCP 54(c), 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, or other applicable law.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`25
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 7
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01035-HL Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED this 15th day of July 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`
`
`
` /s/ Dustin A. Martinsen
`Dustin A. Martinsen, OSB No. 144907
`Butler & Looney, P.C.
`P.O. Box 430
`Vale, OR 97918
`Phone: (541) 473-3111
`Fax: (541) 473-3731
`Email: dustin@butlerlooney.com
`
`ARNOLD & JACOBOWITZ PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Nathan J. Arnold
`Nathan J. Arnold WSBA No. 45356
`Arnold & Jacobowitz PLLC
`2701 First Avenue, Suite 200
`Seattle, WA 98121
`(206) 769-3759; Fax (206) 866-3244
`Nathan@CAJlawyers.com
`PHV Application Pending
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 8
`
`
`BUTLER & LOONEY, P.C.
`PO BOX 430
`VALE OR 97918
`(541) 473-3111
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket