United States Fourth Circuit

In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/08/2008
• Published 05/08/2008

Judges

• Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Jeffrey A. Clair, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.  Robert Daniel Boyce, Boyce & Isley, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.   ON BRIEF:  Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eric Goulian, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott R. McIntosh, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.  Gordon E. Boyce, Boyce & Isley, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.