News

Liability insurance and dicamba damage

Dicamba crop damage has brought up a bunch of insurance questions. Matt Barton, CEO of the Missouri Association of Insurance Agents, explains that federal crop insurance only covers damage from nature, “The damage from a herbicide, whether that’s off-label or not, would not be a covered risk under that type of insurance. So, from that point, what we turn to then is any coverage that could be provided under a farm liability policy.”

Barton tells Brownfield damage to other property or bodily injury to a person as a result of pollution is a standard EXCLUSION in liability policies, but chemical drift coverage can be added, “Is it enough in a situation like this? Probably not likely, considering the standard limit on those endorsements is generally about 25-thousand dollars.”

Plus, Barton says, there are many other factors that might affect whether a farmer’s policy would provide coverage for damage to neighboring farms, “Including if the herbicide was sprayed under certain weather conditions; if the directions for the application on the label were thoroughly followed; did the farmer know about any potential dangers of the chemical and still move forward? In essence, breaching his or her duty, among other factors.”

Barton expects the dicamba issue to be addressed in liability policies in the years to come. If there are high dollar settlements in court, he says, those could lead to more restrictive policies that won’t cover damage by dicamba drift.

AUDIO: Interview with Matt Barton: