The appellant appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny his crop insurance claim for a reduced soybean yield in 1999.
AGRICORP had denied the claim on the basis that the yield reduction was due to poor farm management practices, specifically inadequate weed control, rather than an insured peril like drought.
The Tribunal found that the yield reduction was caused by a combination of drought (an insured peril) and poor farm management practices (late planting and lack of crop rotation).
The Tribunal ordered AGRICORP to pay 50% of the claim, amounting to $2,109.97.
