Edward Mailloux

The appellant, an apple grower, appealed AGRICORP's calculation of his crop insurance claim under the 1998 Apple Production Plan.

The appellant's orchard suffered both frost and hail damage, and he argued that the claim settlement was improperly calculated and that the contract was an 'open contract' because the payout methodology for multiple perils was not clearly explained.

The Tribunal found that the contract was not an open contract and that its terms were outlined in the Plan.

The Tribunal concluded that AGRICORP calculated the claim correctly and consistently with the contract, applying the hail rider first and then calculating the frost damage after harvest, including a bumper crop settlement that increased the payout.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's calculation of their claims under the Crop Insurance Plan for Forage for the 1997 and 1998 crop years.

The appellants argued that the area-based yield simulation model did not accurately reflect their individual farm losses due to drought.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP had correctly applied the area-based plan and its computer simulation model in accordance with the coverage purchased, and that the appellants were treated no differently than other insureds.

The appeal was denied.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Coultis Drain under the Drainage Act.

At the hearing, the engineer who prepared the report advised that the channel had significantly eroded since the design was completed, rendering the proposed work inadequate and requiring a complete redesign with substantially higher costs.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to an engineer for further consideration.

Because the engineers for both sides failed to communicate these known issues in a timely manner prior to the hearing, the Tribunal ordered that the costs of the hearing not be added to the cost of the drainage works, and made no order as to costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of AgriCorp concerning a crop insurance claim for corn.

As a preliminary matter, the parties asked the Tribunal to rule on whether AgriCorp had the legal authority to revise a final acreage report after it had been filed and the premium paid.

The Tribunal ruled that under Regulation 222, AgriCorp has a reasonable period of time to review and revise the final acreage report, subject to the insured's right to object.

Following this ruling, the appellants withdrew the balance of their appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by AgriCorp denying a crop insurance claim for soybeans.

AgriCorp brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the appellant harvested and was credited for more soybeans than the guaranteed production under the insurance contract, meaning there was no 'loss' to adjust.

Based on agreed facts, the Board found that the appellant delivered and was credited for more than the guaranteed amount.

Consequently, there was no insured loss, and the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 2 of Regulation 140/96.

The appeal was dismissed.