PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE
LITIGATION, MDL-1634
MARVIN TAYLOR BARNHILL; JOEY
WATFORD; TOM CLEMENTS; FLORIDA
PEANUT FARMERS, and others
similarly situated; TERRY E.
BEASLEY; WALLACE A. BERRY, South
Carolina Peanut Farmer and others
similarly situated; TEXAS PEANUT
FARMERS, in the Southwest Growing
Region; GEORGIA PEANUT FARMERS;
CHARLES E. SMITH, JR.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. No. 07-1145
ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of
Agriculture for the United States of
America; ROSS J. DAVIDSON,
Administrator for Risk Management
Agency; RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE
CORPORATION; MIKE MOORE, RMA
Regional Office Director Valdosta;
RON BERRYHILL, RMA Regional
Office Director, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma,
Defendants-Appellants.
2 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
In Re: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE
LITIGATION, MDL-1634
MARVIN TAYLOR BARNHILL; JOEY
WATFORD; TOM CLEMENTS; FLORIDA
PEANUT FARMERS, and others
similarly situated; TERRY E.
BEASLEY; WALLACE A. BERRY, South
Carolina Peanut Farmer and others
similarly situated; TEXAS PEANUT
FARMERS, in the Southwest Growing
Region; GEORGIA PEANUT FARMERS;
CHARLES E. SMITH, JR.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 07-1146
ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of
Agriculture for the United States of
America; ROSS J. DAVIDSON,
Administrator for Risk Management
Agency; RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE
CORPORATION; MIKE MOORE, RMA
Regional Office Director Valdosta;
RON BERRYHILL, RMA Regional
Office Director, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma,
Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 3
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge.
(4:05-cv-00008-H; 4:02-cv-00159-H; 4:05-cv-00002-H;
4:04-cv-00191-H; 4:04-cv-00189-H; 4:04-cv-00188-H;
4:04-cv-00187-H; 4:04-cv-00186-H; 4:06-cv-00164-H;
4:06-cv-00163-H; 4:06-cv-00129-H)
Argued: December 5, 2007
Decided: May 8, 2008
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and
Henry F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the
District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge King wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Floyd joined.
COUNSEL
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, Assis-
tant 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.
4 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge:
These appeals relate to lawsuits being pursued by several classes
of peanut farmers (the "Farmers") who insured their 2002 peanut
crops under a Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Policy (the "MPCI Pol-
icy") that, under federal law, was issued by private insurers and rein-
sured by the Government.1 After suffering heavy losses to their 2002
peanut crops, due primarily to a severe drought during the growing
season, the Farmers filed claims under the MPCI Policy. They were
indemnified for their losses at a "non-quota" rate of 17.75 cents per
pound — rather than at the claimed "quota" rate of 31 cents. The
Farmers’ expectations of indemnity at the 31 cent quota rate were
premised largely on the Government’s allocations of peanut poundage
quotas in previous years. However, federal farm legislation enacted
in May 2002 eliminated the peanut quota program that had been in
effect in some form since 1941. See Farm Security and Rural Invest-
ment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-171, §§ 1301-1310, 116 Stat. 134,
166-83 (2002) (the "2002 Farm Bill").
After the Farmers were indemnified at the 17.75 cent non-quota
rate for their 2002 crop losses, they initiated a series of civil actions
against the Government in several federal jurisdictions, alleging, inter
alia, that the MPCI Policy had been breached and that their due pro-
cess rights had been violated.2 The district court eventually had before
it a district-wide class action on behalf of the Farmers situated in the
Eastern District of North Carolina, as well as several other district-
wide class actions first initiated in other jurisdictions and then trans-
ferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina by the Multi-District
Litigation Panel (the "MDL Panel"). In disposing of the Farmers’
1
A copy of the MPCI Policy is found at J.A. 40-59. (Citations herein
to "J.A. ___" refer to the contents of the Joint Appendix filed by the par-
ties in this appeal.)
2
The Farmers initiated their lawsuits against multiple defendants,
including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Risk
Management Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the United States,
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and others. We refer to the
defendants collectively as the "Government."
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 5
contentions, the court, on July 22, 2004, certified a district-wide class
action on behalf of the Farmers in the Eastern District of North Caro-
lina (the "North Carolina case"). The court then awarded summary
judgment to those Farmers on their breach of contract claims. See
Barnhill v. Davidson, No. 4:02-cv-00159-H (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2004)
(the "SJ Opinion").3 On March 31, 2005, the court entered an order
establishing a formula to be used in computing damage awards. See
In re Peanut Crop Insurance Litigation, No. 4:05-cv-00008-H
(E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2005) (the "Damages Order").4 On March 31,
2005, and again on December 20, 2006, the court extended its SJ
Opinion (including the class certification ruling), as well as its Dam-
ages Order, to the lawsuits brought by the Farmers in other jurisdic-
tions (the "MDL cases"). See In re Peanut Crop Insurance Litigation,
No. 4:05-cv-00008-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2005) ("MDL Order I"); In
re Peanut Crop Insurance Litigation, No. 4:05-cv-00008-H2
(E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2006) ("MDL Order II").5
On December 20, 2006, the district court entered Final Judgment
on the Farmers’ breach of contract claims, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.6 The Government has appealed,
contending, inter alia, that the court erred by (1) concluding that the
MPCI Policy obligated the insurers to indemnify the Farmers at the
31 cent quota rate in the absence of 2002 peanut poundage quota allo-
cations having been made to individual farms; and (2) determining
that the Government’s failure to allocate such quotas breached the
MPCI Policy, based on the court’s conclusion that the enactment of
the 2002 Farm Bill hindered the performance of the Government’s
statutory duty to allocate such quotas. The Government also contends
that the court erroneously premised its SJ Opinion, in part, on the
Farmers’ alternative theory of detrimental reliance. The Farmers have
cross-appealed, asserting that the district court erred in failing to cer-
tify a nationwide class of farmer-plaintiffs, and also in denying the
requests of certain plaintiffs for transfers of venue. As explained
3
The SJ Opinion can be found at J.A. 237-85.
4
The Damages Order can be found at J.A. 295-302.
5
The MDL Order I can be found at J.A. 303-07, and the MDL Order
II can be found at J.A. 362-67.
6
The Final Judgment can be found at J.A. 368.
6 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
below, we disagree with the district court’s breach of contract ruling,
and thus vacate its SJ Opinion and remand.
I.
In order to properly assess these appeals, we first review the back-
ground of the federal crop insurance and peanut quota programs.7 We
then examine the relevant provisions of the MPCI Policy and the
2002 Farm Bill. Finally, we relate the procedural history of this litiga-
tion, as well as the appellate contentions of the parties.
A.
Although crop insurance under the MPCI Policy is provided by pri-
vate insurers, it is reinsured by a governmental entity called the Fed-
eral Crop Insurance Corporation (the "FCIC"), pursuant to the Federal
Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq.8 The FCIC is a wholly
owned government corporation that operates under the umbrella of
the Department of Agriculture (the "USDA"), and it is statutorily
responsible for regulating the crop insurance industry. See Tex. Pea-
nut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The FCIC is itself regulated by the USDA’s Risk Management
Agency (the "RMA"). Id. As specified by Congress, the FCIC’s pur-
7
Although various terms have been used in the record, sometimes
interchangeably, we refer to the components of the peanut price support
program as follows. First, we refer to the general price support program
at issue as the "peanut quota program." We use the term "national pound-
age quota" to describe the total peanut poundage quota set by the United
States Department of Agriculture for the entire country, and we refer to
the peanut quota allocations made to individual farms as the "farm
poundage quota."
8
Section 1508(j) of Title 7 provides that, if a "claim for indemnity is
denied by the [FCIC] or an approved provider, an action on the claim
may be brought against the [FCIC] or Secretary [of Agriculture] only in
the United States district court for the district in which the insured farm
is located." 7 U.S.C. § 1508(j)(2). The various public officials and enti-
ties named as defendants in this litigation are apparently proper parties
thereto, pursuant to the MPCI Policy and § 1508(j) — and the parties
have made no contention to the contrary.
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 7
pose is "to promote the national welfare by improving the economic
stability of agriculture through a sound system of crop insurance." 7
U.S.C. § 1502(a). The crop insurance program implements the public
policy of protecting farmers from the risks associated with drought,
flood, and other natural disasters. 7 U.S.C. § 1508(b). The basic cov-
erage provisions of crop insurance protect insured farmers against cat-
astrophic risk, and serve to indemnify those farmers on losses in
excess of 50% of the crop’s normal yield, indemnified at 55% of the
crop’s expected market price. 7 U.S.C. § 1508(b); 7 C.F.R. § 402.1.
Pursuant to the governing provisions of the crop insurance program,
insured farmers are also entitled to purchase additional insurance cov-
erage at a greater percentage of their expected yields. 7 U.S.C.
§ 1508(c).
Prior to 2002, the extent to which the MPCI Policy indemnified
lost or damaged peanut crops varied, depending on whether the
insured crops were designated as "quota" or "non-quota" peanuts, as
defined by the peanut quota program. This peanut quota program was
recently addressed and described by the Federal Circuit in Members
of the Peanut Quota Holders Ass’n v. United States, 421 F.3d 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (concluding that 2002 Farm Bill’s changes in quota
program did not result in compensable taking under Fifth Amend-
ment). That court’s description of the background of the program is
helpful, and was spelled out, in part, as follows:
In the 1930s the United States’ economic depression partic-
ularly affected the agricultural community. Congress, in an
attempt to mitigate the effects of the depression on agricul-
tural products, enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 ("AAA"), ch. 30 tit. III, § 301 et seq., 52 Stat. 31, 38,
which regulated the production and sale of tobacco and
wheat within the United States. The statute instituted acre-
age allotments to prevent oversupply of the targeted agricul-
tural commodities. In 1941, the AAA was amended to
include farm acreage allotments for peanuts. The Agricul-
tural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, ch. 39, tit. III,
§§ 357-359, 55 Stat. 88, 88-91 (the "1941 Act"). The 1941
Act sought to regulate the production of peanuts to avoid
severe fluctuations in price caused by rapid changes in mar-
ket demand and the year-long lag in response to that demand
8 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
caused by crop growing cycles. 1941 Act, 55 Stat. at 88.
Since 1941, Congress has regulated peanut production pri-
marily through quotas set by the Secretary of Agriculture
. . . but the nature and reach of the quota system has not
remained constant.
Peanut Quota Holders Ass’n, 421 F.3d at 1325-26. The peanut quota
program was, prior to 2002, a price support system for each year’s
peanut crop. "Quota" peanuts were peanuts used for domestic edible
consumption, whereas "non-quota" peanuts (a/k/a "additional pea-
nuts" or "excess peanuts") were either crushed or exported. Non-quota
peanuts had a lower value than quota peanuts, and, in the crop years
preceding 2002, the vast majority of peanuts grown by the Farmers
were quota peanuts.
The value of quota peanuts and the related national poundage quota
for such peanuts in a specific crop year were determined by the USDA.9
Farm poundage quota allocations to individual farms were made by
the Farm Service Agency (the "FSA"), which administers the price
support programs of the USDA. During the crop years immediately
preceding 2002, quota peanuts lost due to covered occurrences were
indemnified at the rate of 31 cents per pound, and non-quota peanuts
lost due to such occurrences were indemnified at a 16 cent rate. The
peanut quota program thus supplied the MPCI Policy with the value
per pound of both quota and non-quota peanuts, and those values
were used for determining the applicable coverage and indemnifica-
tion rates. Based on whether — and to what extent — farm poundage
quotas were allocated to individual peanut farms, these rates were
used to calculate the allowable indemnification for peanut crop losses
under the Policy.
B.
1.
The coverage provisions of the MPCI Policy were published in the
Federal Register and are codified in Title 7 of the Code of Federal
9
Because the peanut quota program was repealed by the 2002 Farm
Bill, we refer to it in the past tense.
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 9
Regulations. See 7 C.F.R. §§ 457.1 et seq. The USDA, acting through
the RMA and the FCIC, is responsible for satisfying certain deadlines
and for general oversight of the MPCI Policy. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1501
et seq. The MPCI Policy also imposes certain obligations on insured
farmers. The following MPCI Policy terms relate to dates and dead-
lines that are pertinent to these appeals:
• All changes to the MPCI Policy’s coverage provisions,
price elections, coverage limits, premium rates, and pro-
gram dates must generally be made prior to a "contract
change date." The Policy defines the "contract change
date" as the "calendar date by which we make any policy
changes available for inspection in the agent’s office."
MPCI Basic Policy ¶ 1. For the 2002 crop year, the con-
tract change date was November 30, 2001.
• Price elections can be offered after the contract change
date, so long as they are offered no later than fifteen days
prior to the "sales closing date," and are not less than
those available on the contract change date. MPCI Basic
Policy ¶¶ 3(e) & 4(b). The MPCI Policy defines the
"sales closing date" as "a date contained in the Special
Provisions by which an application must be filed. The
latest date by which you may change your crop insurance
coverage for a crop year." Id. ¶ 1. The sales closing date,
which varied from state to state, was February 28, 2002,
for the Farmers in the North Carolina case.10
• The "cancellation date," or the date on which coverage
would automatically renew unless cancelled in writing,
was also February 28, 2002, in North Carolina.11 After
10
The sales closing dates for the MPCI Policy in the various districts
outside North Carolina were in or about February 2002. For example, the
sales closing date in Virginia was March 15, 2002.
11
The cancellation dates provided by the MPCI Policy were as follows:
January 15, 2002, for certain counties in Texas; February 28, 2002, for
certain other counties in Texas and all states not otherwise mentioned;
and, March 15, 2002, for New Mexico, Oklahoma, Virginia, and the
remaining Texas counties.
10 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
the cancellation date, the Farmers were bound by the
MPCI Policy and could neither rescind nor alter it.
• The "earliest planting date" for North Carolina Farmers
was April 16, 2002. The MPCI Policy defines the "earli-
est planting date" as the "earliest date established for
planting the insured crop." MPCI Basic Policy ¶ 1.
• The North Carolina Farmers had until the "final planting
date" of May 31, 2002, to plant their peanut crops. The
"final planting date" is the "date contained in the Special
Provisions for the insured crop by which the crop must
initially be planted in order to be insured for the full pro-
duction guarantee or amount of insurance per acre."
MPCI Basic Policy ¶ 1.12
2.
The MPCI Policy includes several other provisions and definitions
that are pertinent to an understanding of these proceedings, including:
• The MPCI Policy defines "price election" as the
"amounts contained in the Special Provisions or an
addendum thereto, to be used for computing the value
per pound . . . for the purposes of determining premium
and indemnity under the policy." MPCI Basic Policy ¶ 1.
The price election is generally based on the FCIC’s pro-
jection of market prices for a given commodity. 7 U.S.C.
§ 1508 (c)(5) & (6).
• The MPCI Policy required each insured Farmer to file an
annual "acreage report" detailing the peanut crop acreage
to be planted by the farm and the "effective poundage
marketing quota, if any, that is applicable" to an individ-
12
Farmers outside North Carolina were also required to plant their pea-
nut crops in the Spring of 2002. For example, Virginia Farmers had an
initial planting date of April 11, 2002, and a final planting date of June
10, 2002.
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 11
ual farm for the current crop year. MPCI Policy Peanut
Provision ¶ 6.
• The term "effective poundage marketing quota" is
important with respect to this litigation and federal crop
insurance, and is defined by the MPCI Policy as the
"number of pounds reported on the acreage report as eli-
gible for the average support price per pound . . . not to
exceed the Marketing Quota established by [the FSA] for
the farm serial number." MPCI Policy Peanut Provision
¶ 1.
• The MPCI Policy defines "quota peanuts" as "[p]eanuts
that are eligible to be valued at the average support price
per pound." MPCI Policy Peanut Provision ¶ 1. "Non-
quota peanuts," in turn, are simply defined as "[p]eanuts
other than quota peanuts." Id.
• The "production guarantee" is defined in the MPCI Pol-
icy as the "number of pounds . . . determined by multi-
plying the approved yield per acre by the coverage level
percentage you elect." MPCI Basic Policy ¶ 1.
The MPCI Policy provides that "[t]he maximum pounds that may
be insured at the quota price election" are the lesser of "the effective
poundage marketing quota," or the "insured acreage multiplied by the
production guarantee" — but, to the extent that the resulting figure
"exceeds the effective poundage marketing quota, the difference will
be insured at the non-quota peanut price election." MPCI Policy Pea-
nut Provision ¶ 3(b). Although the MPCI Policy explains how quota
peanuts are insured, it also authorizes and provides for coverage
where lost or damaged crops do not involve quota peanuts. For exam-
ple, the MPCI Policy makes reference to the "effective poundage mar-
keting quota, if any." Id. ¶ 6. In calculating the maximum poundage
that may be insured as quota peanuts, the MPCI Policy looks to the
lesser of the effective poundage marketing quota, on the one hand, or
the insured acreage multiplied by the production guarantee, on the
other. If, with respect to an insured farm, the insured acreage multi-
plied by the production guarantee exceeds the effective poundage
marketing quota, the difference is insured and indemnified at the non-
12 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
quota rate only. If an insured farm has not been allocated an effective
poundage marketing quota, its entire insured acreage, multiplied by
the production guarantee, would exceed a quota allocation of zero and
the entire production would be insured at the non-quota rate. Thus,
when an annual farm poundage quota allocation for an insured farm
is "zero," none of that farm’s peanut production is insured at the quota
rate.
The MPCI Policy similarly provides for the calculation of indem-
nity in the event that part or all of a Farmer’s lost crops are non-quota
peanuts. Specifically, the indemnity formula provides that the value
of lost or damaged peanuts is computed by first multiplying the
insured acreage by the production guarantee per acre. MPCI Policy
Peanut Provision ¶ 14(c). The second step of this indemnity formula
requires the effective poundage marketing quota of the farm to be
subtracted from the resulting sum, to determine the amount of insured
quota and non-quota peanuts (the amount in excess of the effective
poundage marketing quota is the amount of non-quota peanuts). Id.
After determining the amount of insured quota and non-quota pea-
nuts, those amounts are multiplied by their respective price elections.
Thus, in the event a farm poundage quota allocation is not made to
a farm with an insured crop, the MPCI Policy provides that the loss
to be indemnified must be determined on the basis of the price elec-
tion for non-quota peanuts. Id.
C.
On November 30, 2001 (the contract change date), an addendum
to the MPCI Policy was issued and made effective. The addendum
provided that losses suffered by 2002 crop year peanuts would be
indemnified at 31 cents per pound for quota peanuts and 16 cents per
pound for non-quota peanuts (as they had been indemnified for the
previous several years). Two weeks later, on December 14, 2001, the
USDA announced a national poundage quota for peanuts for the 2002
crop year, at the same level as the 2001 national poundage quota. The
USDA announcement stated that the "2002-crop national poundage
quota will be allocated to each state based on the state’s share of the
2001-crop national poundage quota." J.A. 75. This announcement,
however, also alerted the Farmers to the possibility that the peanut
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 13
quota program for the 2002 crop year could be altered or eliminated
by statute. Specifically, it advised that:
The Farm Bill currently being considered by Congress
would dramatically change the peanut program. Poundage
quotas would be eliminated and price support would be
replaced with a target price and deficiency payment plan. If
pending legislation is enacted as law, the 2002 poundage
quota and price support announced by this release may be
altered or rescinded.
J.A. 75 (emphasis added). As noted, this USDA announcement was
made two weeks after the contract change date of November 30,
2001. On January 15, 2002, the USDA announced that the national
poundage quota for peanuts would remain the same in 2002 and "will
be allocated to eligible quota and non-quota farms." J.A. 77. This
announcement again warned, however, that:
The Farm Bill currently being considered by Congress
would change the peanut program. Poundage quotas would
be eliminated and price support would be replaced with a
target price and deficiency payment plan. If pending legisla-
tion is enacted as Law for 2002, the 2002 poundage quota
announced according to this notice will be altered or
rescinded.
J.A. 78 (emphasis added). As these USDA announcements forecast
and warned, the FSA did not allocate farm poundage quotas to indi-
vidual farms in 2002. Instead, on May 3, 2002, the FSA directed its
county offices not to allocate any such quotas to individual peanut
farms for 2002. Ten days later, on May 13, 2002, the President signed
into law the 2002 Farm Bill, which, inter alia, repealed the FSA’s
statutory authority to allocate farm poundage quotas to peanut farms
and substantially and materially altered the federal crop assistance
program for peanut farmers.
In the place and stead of the peanut quota system, the 2002 Farm
Bill provided for several programs: continued price supports through
non-recourse loans at rates substantially below the quota rates; a pro-
gram of direct payments to farmers; a new price support program of
14 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
payments triggered by the rise and fall of market prices; a marketing
quota buy-out program; and a mandated increase — from 16 cents to
17.75 cents per pound — in the price election for non-quota peanuts,
to be used to compute premiums and indemnity payments under the
2002 MPCI Policy. 2002 Farm Bill § 1310(c).13
On May 28, 2002, in response to the major statutory revisions
made by the 2002 Farm Bill to the peanut quota program, the USDA
sent a bulletin to the crop insurance companies, advising them that all
2002 peanuts were to be treated as non-quota peanuts for purposes of
the MPCI Policy in the 2002 crop year. Accordingly, all indemnities
made pursuant to the MPCI Policy for 2002 peanut crops were made
at the non-quota rate of 17.75 cents.14
D.
Unfortunately, the Farmers’ 2002 peanut crops suffered heavy
losses and damages, primarily due to a severe drought during the
growing season. When they filed their claims for indemnification
under the MPCI Policy, the Farmers were informed that their losses
13
Section 1310(c) of the Farm Bill provides, in pertinent part, that:
(c) Treatment of crop insurance policies for 2002 crop year —
(1) Applicability — This subsection shall apply for the 2002
crop year only notwithstanding any other provision of law or
crop insurance policy.
(2) Price Election — the non-quota price election . . . shall be
17.75 cents per pound and shall be used for all aspects of the pol-
icy relating to the calculations of premium, liability and indemni-
ties.
14
Thus, while the Farmers were bound to the MPCI Policy on February
28, 2002, and were obligated to plant their peanut crops between April
16 and May 31, 2002, the 2002 Farm Bill repealed the peanut quota pro-
gram on May 13, 2002. This enactment occurred subsequent to the date
when the Farmers were entitled to withdraw from the MPCI Policy or
able to reevaluate the planting of their 2002 peanut crops — although the
Farmers had twice been placed on notice by the USDA (on December
14, 2001, and, again on January 15, 2002) of likely changes to the peanut
quota program.
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 15
would only be indemnified at the non-quota rate of 17.75 cents per
pound, although they had been expecting indemnification at the 31
cent quota rate. Indeed, quota peanuts had usually constituted a
majority of the Farmers’ annual crops. When their claims for indem-
nification at the 31 cent rate were denied, the Farmers initiated this
series of lawsuits, alleging that the MPCI Policy had been breached
and that the Government had violated their due process rights.
1.
The North Carolina case was filed on November 19, 2002, "on
behalf of all peanut farmers in North Carolina and Virginia who are
eligible for the Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Policy for crop year
2002 and are similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs." J.A. 11. Put
succinctly, the complaint sought declaratory, injunctive, and compen-
satory relief, and requested that the proceeding be certified as a class
action. It alleged that the Government had breached the MPCI Policy
by the unilateral and untimely modification of its coverage terms, and
asserted that the Government had violated the Farmers’ due process
rights by, inter alia, arbitrarily and capriciously altering the Policy by
unilateral and retroactive action.
In ruling on the class certification issue in its SJ Opinion, the dis-
trict court certified a class of insured Farmers whose farms were situ-
ated within the Eastern District of North Carolina and who had been
assigned farm poundage quotas for the 2001 crop year. See SJ Opin-
ion 11-23. The court concluded, however, pursuant to § 1508(j) of
Title 7, that it lacked jurisdiction over insured Farmers whose farms
were situated outside the Eastern District of North Carolina, and thus
excluded them from the certified class. Id. at 12, 19.15
The district court then proceeded to address the parties’ cross-
motions for summary judgment, and ruled in favor of the Farmers on
15
As noted above, § 1508(j) of Title 7, as relied upon in the SJ Opin-
ion, provides that if a "claim for indemnity is denied by the [FCIC] or
an approved provider, an action on the claim may be brought against the
[FCIC] or Secretary [of Agriculture] only in the United States district
court for the district in which the insured farm is located." See supra note
8.
16 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
the merits of their breach of contract claims. See SJ Opinion 32-46.
In so ruling, the court concluded that the Government had breached
its contractual obligation under the MPCI Policy to indemnify the
Farmers’ 2002 lost peanut crops at the 31 cent quota rate. The court
reasoned that the Government, by the 2002 Farm Bill’s repeal of the
FSA’s authority to allocate farm poundage quotas, had hindered the
occurrence of a condition that would have given rise to coverage and
indemnity at the 31 cent rate, and that the Government was thus
barred from denying liability under the MPCI Policy. Id. at 35-38.
The court also determined that neither the "sovereign acts doctrine"
nor the "unmistakability doctrine" afforded the Government a valid
defense to liability. Id. at 39-47.
With respect to the "sovereign acts doctrine," the court recognized
that the Government would possess a valid defense to the Farmers’
breach of contract claims if a "public and general" law prevented the
occurrence of a condition giving rise to liability. SJ Opinion 39-42.
It concluded, however, that the 2002 Farm Bill, in repealing the
poundage marketing quota program, included a provision that "obvi-
ously and specifically targeted the contractual obligations under the
peanut farmers’ pre-existing crop insurance policies for the 2002 crop
year." Id. at 44. The court concluded that "the reduction of insurance
coverage was direct, not merely incidental to the accomplishment of
a broader governmental objective." Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). It thus determined that the sovereign acts doctrine did not
authorize the Government to escape liability for the Farmers’ breach
of contract claims. Id. at 46.
The court next concluded that, "because the [2002 Farm Bill] was
not ‘public and general,’ the unmistakability doctrine does not apply."
SJ Opinion 46. With respect to the due process claims, the court
determined that the "plaintiffs’ due process arguments are primarily
based on their contract claims." Id. at 47-48. Concluding that it had
"already discussed the plaintiffs’ contract claim at length and found
for the plaintiffs as to this claim," the court found it unnecessary to
resolve the plaintiffs’ due process claims. Id.16
16
The district court also appears to have based its SJ Opinion, at least
in part, on a theory of detrimental reliance. In its breach of contract anal-
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 17
2.
When the district court made its rulings in the SJ Opinion, several
similar lawsuits were being pursued in other federal courts. One such
proceeding, filed in the Court of Federal Claims on behalf of Farmers
in Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina, was dis-
missed on December 16, 2003, for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the
Federal Circuit concurred in the jurisdictional ruling, but vacated the
dismissal and remanded to the Court of Federal Claims for transfers
of the lawsuits to the appropriate district courts. Tex. Peanut Farmers
Ass’n v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Farmers
in those cases then requested the MDL Panel to transfer their claims
to the Eastern District of North Carolina, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407. The MDL Panel agreed, and transferred these and other cases
to the district court "for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings." J.A. 292 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1407).17
On March 31, 2005, and December 20, 2006, the district court cer-
tified several additional district-wide classes in the MDL cases.18 The
class certification orders entered with respect to the MDL cases
ysis, the court concluded that "it was fundamentally wrong for the gov-
ernment to tell the farmers that they would have insurance coverage at
$0.31 per pound for as many peanuts as the FSA declared to be quota
peanuts, and then, after the farmers had planted their crops, to tell the
FSA not to declare any quota peanuts." SJ Opinion 38.
17
On October 26, 2004, the MDL Panel first transferred six MDL cases
to the Eastern District of North Carolina for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. Thereafter, on June 21, 2006, the Panel transferred
several additional MDL cases to the Eastern District of North Carolina.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the Eastern District of North Caro-
lina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which authorizes the judicial panel on
multidistrict litigation to transfer civil actions involving one or more
common questions of fact to a single district for "coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings." 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).
18
The ten additional district-wide classes certified by the district court
in the MDL cases include Farmers in the Middle District of Alabama, the
Northern District of Florida, the Southern and Middle Districts of Geor-
gia, the District of South Carolina, the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and
Western Districts of Texas, and the Eastern District of Virginia.
18 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
tracked the court’s class certification ruling in the SJ Opinion in the
North Carolina case — certifying district-wide classes of Farmers
whose insured peanut crops were located within the district in which
their cases had originally been pending. See MDL Order I at 3; MDL
Order II at 5. The court also ruled that its SJ Opinion, rendering the
Government liable on the Farmers’ breach of contract claims,
extended to each of the certified classes of Farmers in the MDL cases.
See MDL Order I at 2; MDL Order II at 4.
On March 31, 2005, after receiving recommendations from the
Farmers and the Government, the district court entered its Damages
Order, explaining the formula it would apply to the calculation of the
Farmers’ damages. The formula first provided for the calculation of
the Farmers’ hypothetical 2002 farm poundage quota and non-quota
amounts. This initial calculation was a necessary starting point
because there had been no 2002 farm poundage quota allocations
made to individual peanut farms. The Damages Order called for these
hypothetical farm poundage quota and non-quota amounts to be deter-
mined by multiplying each individual Farmer’s 2002 production guar-
antee by the district-specific percentage of quota liability for 2001 to
arrive at a quota amount. See Damages Order 2. The amount of lost
"quota" production for each Farmer was then multiplied by the differ-
ence between the 2002 rate for non-quota peanuts (17.75 cents) and
the 31 cent quota rate that had been announced prior to the 2002 Farm
Bill. Id. at 2-3.19 After calculating the damage awards under this for-
mula, the court, on December 20, 2006, entered Final Judgment for
the Farmers in the aggregate sum of approximately $ 30.1 million.
3.
The district court’s Final Judgment made its rulings appealable
19
Although the court authorized reductions in this formula to account
for unpaid premiums, it rejected the Government’s contention that the
damage awards should be further reduced by disaster relief payments the
Farmers received to compensate for their 2002 peanut crop losses. The
court also declined to deduct benefits received by the Farmers from the
commodity assistance program that the 2002 Farm Bill authorized to
replace the peanut quota program.
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 19
under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering as
follows:
[P]ursuant to Rule 54(b), . . . more than one claim for relief
has been presented and multiple parties are involved, the
Court hereby enters Final Judgment in favor of all plaintiffs
and class members who presently have cases pending before
this Court as to the breach of contract claim. The Court fur-
ther finds that there is no just reason for delay.
The court thus determined that its judgment was final with respect to
the breach of contract claims, and also found that there was no just
reason for delay. The Government filed its notice of appeal on Febru-
ary 16, 2007, and the Farmers have cross-appealed. We possess juris-
diction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.
Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 428-29 (1956).
II.
We review de novo a district court’s award of summary judgment,
viewing the facts and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Seabulk Offshore, Ltd. v. Am.
Home Assurance Co., 377 F.3d 408, 418 (4th Cir. 2004). An award
of summary judgment is appropriate only "if . . . there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue
of material fact is one "that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986). We also review de novo a district court’s assessment of
an insurance policy, in that issues of contract interpretation constitute
questions of law. See Hendricks v. Central Reserve Life Ins. Co., 39
F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 1994).
III.
The Government’s contention that the district court erred in award-
ing summary judgment to the Farmers on their breach of contract
claims is premised on two basic propositions: (1) that the court erred
by concluding that the MPCI Policy obligated the insurers to indem-
20 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
nify the Farmers at the 31 cent quota rate in the absence of 2002 farm
poundage quota allocations having been made to individual farms;
and (2) that the court incorrectly determined that the Government’s
failure to allocate such 2002 farm poundage quotas breached the
MPCI Policy, based on its conclusion that the enactment of the 2002
Farm Bill hindered the performance of the Government’s statutory
duty to allocate such quotas. The Government also maintains that the
court erroneously premised its SJ Opinion, in part, on the Farmers’
alternative theory of detrimental reliance. As explained below, we
agree with the Government that the district court erred in awarding
summary judgment to the Farmers on their breach of contract claims.
A.
Before turning to the Government’s contentions of error, we must
first ascertain the body of law that applies to our analysis of these
contract issues. As an initial proposition, "[w]hen the United States
enters into contract relations, its rights and duties therein are governed
generally by the law applicable to contracts between private individu-
als." United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 895 (1996) (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted). And, as the Federal Circuit recently
observed, "[i]t is customary, where Congress has not adopted a differ-
ent standard, to apply to the construction of government contracts the
principles of general contract law, which become federal common
law." Long Island Sav. Bank, FSB v. United States, 503 F.3d 1234,
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Federal
Circuit further concluded that "[t]he Restatement of Contracts reflects
many of the contract principles of federal common law." Id.; see also
Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Se., Inc. v. United States, 530
U.S. 604, 608 (2000) (relying on Restatement of Contracts for princi-
ples of repudiation and restitution); Franconia Assocs. v. United
States, 536 U.S. 129, 141-43 (2002) (applying principles of general
contract law by relying in part on Restatement (Second) of Contracts).
Both the district court and the parties in this litigation, through their
reliance on the Restatement of Contracts and other general principles
of contract law, have impliedly agreed that the contract principles of
federal common law should govern this dispute. Because neither the
Government nor the Farmers contend that Congress promulgated or
mandated a different standard, we will apply such principles in our
assessment of the breach of contract issues. Cf. Battle v. Seibels Bruce
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 21
Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 596, 607 (4th Cir. 2002) (concluding that "the law
is well settled that federal common law alone governs the interpreta-
tion of insurance policies issued pursuant to the [National Flood
Insurance Program]"). We now turn to the Government’s contentions
of error on the district court’s breach of contract rulings.
B.
First, we agree with the Government that the MPCI Policy did not
create any contractual obligation for the insurers to indemnify the
Farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at the 31 cent quota rate. Instead, the
indemnity obligation at the quota rate was contingent on 2002 farm
poundage quota allocations being made to individual peanut farms.
Absent such 2002 allocations, there was no obligation under the
MPCI Policy for the Farmers to be indemnified at the 31 cent quota
rate. Put simply, to be indemnified at the 31 cent rate, an insured farm
had to be assigned a 2002 farm poundage quota by the FSA. Because
the FSA did not assign farm poundage quotas for the 2002 crop sea-
son, the Farmers were never insured at the 31 cent quota rate, and
their claims were properly indemnified at the 17.75 cent non-quota
rate. See Studio Frames, Ltd. v. Std. Fire Ins. Co., 483 F.3d 239, 245
(4th Cir. 2007) (applying federal common law to interpretation of fed-
eral insurance policy and determining that "if the policy language in
issue is clear and unambiguous, we apply it directly").
This interpretation is supported by the express terms of the MPCI
Policy, which required each Farmer to file an "acreage report," detail-
ing the farm’s peanut acreage and the "effective poundage marketing
quota, if any, that is applicable" to the farm for the current crop year.
MPCI Policy Peanut Provision ¶ 6 (emphasis added). The MPCI Pol-
icy provides that "the effective poundage marketing quota, if any, for
each unit" is not to exceed the farm poundage quota allotment — a
provision that specifically contemplates the contingency of no quota
allocations being made to an insured farm. Id. ¶¶ 1, 6 (emphasis
added). As the Government asserts, the MPCI Policy was applicable
to all insured peanut farms, including those that had not previously
been allocated any farm poundage quotas. Thus, the MPCI Policy
makes no promise to provide coverage and indemnification at the 31
cent quota rate in the absence of the FSA’s allocation of 2002 pound-
age quotas to individual farms.
22 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
This point is further supported by the fact that, absent the 2002
farm poundage quota allocations, it would be impossible to insure the
Farmers at the 31 cent quota rate. This is so because the MPCI Policy
provides that "[t]he maximum pounds that may be insured at the
quota price election" may not exceed "the effective poundage market-
ing quota" — defined in turn as a quantity of peanuts "not to exceed
the Marketing Quota established by FSA for the farm serial number."
MPCI Policy Peanut Provision ¶¶ 1, 3. As a result, if the FSA farm
poundage quota for an insured farm is "zero," none of that farm’s pea-
nut crop is insured at the 31 cent quota rate.
The MPCI Policy’s indemnity formula also supports the interpreta-
tion that, absent 2002 farm poundage quota allocations, the insurers
have no obligation to indemnify the Farmers at the 31 cent quota rate.
As noted above, the Policy’s indemnity formula provides that the
value of insured peanuts must first be computed by determining an
insured farm’s amounts of quota and non-quota peanuts (by subtract-
ing the effective poundage marketing quota from the production guar-
antee), and then multiplying these amounts by their respective price
elections. Thus, the MPCI Policy does not, absent the allocation of
2002 farm poundage quotas, authorize indemnification at the 31 cent
quota rate. See MPCI Policy Peanut Provision ¶ 14. This point is illus-
trated by the fact that the district court was unable to calculate the
Farmers’ damages at the 31 cent quota rate without resorting to an
extrinsic source, i.e., 2001 poundage quota amounts, in the formula
provided by its Damages Order. See Damages Order 2-3.
The Farmers, on the other hand, maintain that the Government’s
announcements, as well as the MPCI Policy, contain both express and
implied promises that the Farmers would be indemnified at the 31
cent quota rate for what should have been their lost 2002 farm pound-
age quota peanuts, and that enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill and the
Government’s handling of their indemnity claims breached those
promises. In particular, the Farmers point to the MPCI Policy provi-
sion that coverage will not be reduced:
In addition to the price election or amount of insurance
available on the contract change date, we may provide an
additional price election or amount of insurance no later
than 15 days prior to the sales closing date . . . . These addi-
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 23
tional price elections . . . will not be less than those available
on the contract change date.
MPCI Basic Policy ¶ 3(e); see also id. ¶ 4 (providing that any changes
in policy provisions, including price elections, will be provided no
later than the contract change date, except that price elections may be
offered after that time in accordance with paragraph 3). As noted
above, the 2002 Farm Bill specifically altered the price election
(although expressly for non-quota peanuts only), by providing that
the non-quota price election . . . shall be 17.75 cents per
pound and shall be used for all aspects of the policy relating
to the calculations of premium, liability and indemnities.
2002 Farm Bill § 1310(c)(2). Put succinctly, under the 2002 Farm
Bill, all peanuts were "non-quota peanuts." The Farmers, however,
contend that the alteration to the price election for non-quota peanuts
made by the 2002 Farm Bill was in fact a change to the price election
for quota peanuts — reducing overall coverage and directly contra-
vening the MPCI Policy Peanut Provisions. See MPCI Policy Peanut
Provision ¶ 3 (providing that "additional price elections . . . will not
be less than those available on the contract change date"). Because the
price election of 17.75 cents, as specified in the 2002 Farm Bill, actu-
ally raises the price election for non-quota peanuts, we disagree with
the Farmers on this point. This aspect of the 2002 Farm Bill thus does
not constitute a breach of the MPCI Policy.
The Farmers nevertheless contend that section 1310(c) of the 2002
Farm Bill not only altered the price election, it did so after the date
specified for such alterations in the MPCI Policy. Even if the terms
of the MPCI Policy were somehow violated when the 2002 Farm Bill
raised the price election for non-quota peanuts after the Policy’s dead-
lines, we would decline to award relief on that basis. Put simply, the
Farmers cannot demonstrate that the increase made by the 2002 Farm
Bill to their indemnity for non-quota peanuts (to 17.75 cents), even
if made after the change date specified in the Policy, resulted in an
injury to them. See, e.g., Santana, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 674 F.2d
269, 275 (4th Cir. 1982) (concluding that, in order to maintain action
for breach of contract, plaintiff must show that alleged breach caused
24 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
injury, and finding no injury occurred when alleged breach benefited
plaintiff).
The Farmers’ primary contention, of course, is not that the 2002
Farm Bill raised the indemnity rate for non-quota peanuts, but that the
Government was able to avoid indemnifying them at the 31 cent
quota by enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill. Although the MPCI Policy
provides that "additional" price elections may be offered after the
contract change date, the Farmers’ contention that the 2002 Farm Bill
replaced the price elections available under the MPCI Policy (rather
than offering additional ones) is unpersuasive. In the absence of farm
poundage quotas being allotted to individual farms, the Farmers were
unable to avail themselves of the 31 cent quota rate, regardless of
whether the 2002 Farm Bill replaced that rate or simply provided
price elections in addition to it.
We are similarly unpersuaded by the Farmers’ contention that the
two USDA announcements of December 14, 2001, and January 15,
2002, made express or implied warranties to them with respect to the
2002 farm poundage quotas for peanuts. Although the USDA
announcements indicated that the 2002 national poundage quotas
would remain the same as in the previous year, and that such quotas
would be allocated to eligible farms in the future, the announcements
explicitly warned the Farmers that Congress was considering a Farm
Bill that would change the peanut price support program by eliminat-
ing poundage quotas. Importantly, these announcements specified
that, if the 2002 Farm Bill was enacted, the national poundage quotas
for peanuts would be either altered or rescinded.
In these circumstances, we agree with the Government’s conten-
tions, and reject those of the Farmers’. Although we have great sym-
pathy for the hard-working peanut farmers of this country, our
obligation is to rule on the basis of the factual underpinnings and the
applicable legal principles. The MPCI Policy and the USDA’s
announcements neither expressly nor impliedly promised to indem-
nify the Farmers at the 31 cent quota rate, absent farm poundage
quota allocations being made by the FSA for the 2002 crop year. The
MPCI Policy thus did not, absent 2002 farm poundage quota alloca-
tions being made to individual farms, create a contractual obligation
on the part of either the Government or the insurers to indemnify the
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 25
Farmers for their 2002 peanut crop losses at the 31 cent quota rate.
See Studio Frames, Ltd. v. Std. Fire Ins. Co., 483 F.3d 239, 245 (4th
Cir. 2007) (applying federal common law to interpretation of federal
insurance policy and determining that "if the policy language in issue
is clear and unambiguous, we apply it directly").
C.
Our analysis of the Farmers’ breach of contract claims does not end
here, however. The district court, in part, premised its finding of a
breach on the legal principle that, in the proper circumstances, a con-
tract condition (here, the allocation of 2002 farm poundage quotas)
may be excused if the promisor prevents or hinders the occurrence of
the condition and it would have otherwise occurred. Accordingly,
although the court appears to have concluded that, under the terms of
the MPCI Policy, the Government was not obligated to indemnify the
Farmers at the 31 cent quota rate, the court nevertheless found a
breach by the Government, concluding that it had prevented the FSA
from allocating farm poundage quotas to individual farms for the
2002 crop year. In its ruling, the court relied for this conclusion on
section 295 of the Restatement (First) of Contracts, which provides:
If a promisor prevents or hinders the occurrence of a condi-
tion, . . . and the condition would have occurred . . . except
for such prevention or hindrance, the condition is excused,
and the actual or threatened nonperformance of the return
promise does not discharge the promisor’s duty, unless . . .
(a) the prevention or hindrance by the promisor is caused or
justified by the conduct or pecuniary circumstances of the
other party.
SJ Opinion 35-36 (citing Restatement (First) of Contracts § 295
(1932) as quoted in Powers v. Sims & Levin, 542 F.2d 1216, 1226
(4th Cir. 1976) (Winter, J., concurring and dissenting)). Based on this
Restatement provision, the court concluded that such a hindrance had
occurred when the 2002 Farm Bill, enacted on May 13, 2002, elimi-
nated the statutory directive to the FSA to allocate farm poundage
quotas to individual farms for each crop year. Id. at 36-38 (citing 7
U.S.C. § 1358-1(b)(1)(A) (2001)). The court further concluded that,
as "the FSA would have assigned the farm poundage quotas had the
26 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
[2002 Farm Bill] not prevented or hindered it from doing so, the
[requirements] of § 295 [are] met." Id. at 35-36.
Although Judge Parker recognized years ago, in Fuller Co. v.
Brown, that "[i]t is a principle of fundamental justice that if a promi-
sor is himself the cause of the failure of performance . . . of a condi-
tion upon which his own liability depends, he cannot take advantage
of the failure," see 15 F.2d 672, 678 (4th Cir. 1926) (quoting 2 Willis-
ton on Contracts § 677), that legal principle is inapplicable to this
appeal. The indemnification of the Farmers under the MPCI Policy
did not "depend" on FSA’s allocation of 2002 farm poundage quotas.
The district court thus erred in excusing what it viewed as the "condi-
tion" of 2002 farm poundage allocations. A "condition," as defined by
the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, is "an event, not certain to
occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before
performance under a contract becomes due." Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 224 (emphasis added); see also 13 Williston on Contracts
§ 38:7 (4th ed. 2006) ("A condition precedent is either an act of a
party that must be performed or a certain event that must happen
before a contractual right accrues or contractual duty arises."); Moore
Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)
("The prevention doctrine is a generally recognized principle of con-
tract law according to which if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfill-
ment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived
or excused." (emphasis added)).20
The only condition to the indemnification of the Farmers under the
MPCI Policy was the occurrence of a natural cause of covered loss.
See MPCI Policy Peanut Provision ¶ 11 (providing coverage for loss
caused by, inter alia, adverse weather conditions, fire, insects, plant
disease, wildlife). When a covered loss occurs, the obligation of the
insurer to indemnify under the MPCI Policy is triggered. There is,
20
In addition to not being a "condition" to its performance under the
MPCI Policy, the Farmers failed to demonstrate that the Government
made an enforceable promise to allocate poundage quotas to individual
peanut farms. As the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides,
"[n]on-occurrence of a condition is not a breach by a party unless he is
under a duty that the condition occur." Restatement (Second) of Con-
tracts § 225.
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 27
however, no Policy provision that conditions such indemnification on
whether farm poundage quotas are allocated to an individual farm for
a particular crop year. Instead, the farm poundage quota allocations
simply play a role in the computation of the indemnification to be
paid to the Farmers for their covered losses. Thus, the Government is
also correct on this point — performance under the MPCI Policy is
not conditioned on the allocation of farm poundage quotas by the
FSA.
Importantly, our conclusion on this contention is supported by the
fact that the Farmers have already been indemnified for their 2002
crop losses under the MPCI Policy — although they were indemnified
at the non-quota rate of 17.75 cents, rather than at the 31 cent quota
rate they seek in this litigation. Thus, the Government did not hinder
the occurrence of any condition that had to occur before an indemnifi-
cation obligation under the MPCI Policy was triggered. Indemnifica-
tion was due when the Farmers presented their claims for covered
losses under the MPCI Policy, and the insurers performed under the
Policy by indemnifying those losses at the non-quota rate of 17.75
cents.
Because the allocation of the 2002 crop year farm poundage quotas
was not a "condition" of performance under the MPCI Policy, we dis-
agree with the SJ Opinion on this issue. Although the 2002 farm
poundage quota allocations were an essential precursor to the Farmers
being indemnified at the 31 cent quota rate, they were not a condition
to the insurers’ performance under the coverage and indemnification
provisions of the MPCI Policy. As a result, the district court erred in
concluding in its SJ Opinion that a breach of the MPCI Policy
occurred, and in awarding summary judgment to the Farmers on their
breach of contract claims. We must therefore vacate the court’s ruling
in this regard.21
21
The Government also argues that the district court erred in its appli-
cation of the unmistakability and sovereign acts doctrines. These doc-
trines create exceptions from government liability when a breach is
caused by an act of the government. Because, as explained herein, the
Government is not liable for any breach of the MPCI Policy, we need not
assess assertions in this regard.
28 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
D.
Finally, the Government disagrees with the Farmers’ alternative
contention that they are entitled to indemnification for their crop
losses at the 31 cent rate because they had expended substantial sums
of money and resources in reliance on the MPCI Policy and on the
USDA announcements (which had forecast allocations of poundage
quotas in 2002 at the same rates and percentages as in earlier years).
Such reliance by the Farmers included, inter alia, planting their peanut
crops, entering into leases and bank loans, foregoing other farming
options, and cancelling other insurance coverage. Because the peanut
quota program was not repealed by the 2002 Farm Bill until after the
announcement of the national poundage quota for the 2002 crop year
— when the MPCI Policy was already final and after the beginning
of the 2002 planting season — the Farmers contend that they are enti-
tled to recover their damages. The elements of such a detrimental reli-
ance claim are: (1) a promise, (2) which the promisor should
reasonably expect to cause action by the promisee, (3) which does
cause such action, and (4) which should be enforced to prevent injus-
tice to the promisee. C & K Petrol. Prods., Inc. v. Equibank, 839 F.2d
188, 192 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts
§ 90).
The Government asserts, on the other hand, that the Farmers’ uni-
lateral expectation that farm poundage quota authority would remain
in effect for the 2002 crop year does not afford them any basis for
imputing to the MPCI Policy an implied promise to indemnify at the
31 cent quota rate. See Maccaferri Gabions, Inc. v. Dynateria Inc., 91
F.3d 1431, 1444 (11th Cir. 1996) (looking to Restatement (Second)
of Contracts § 90 and concluding that "[i]t is axiomatic that a plaintiff
cannot recover for reasonable, detrimental reliance on a promise with-
out proving that the defendant made the promise"). Furthermore, the
Government contends that the Farmers could not reasonably rely on
the fact that poundage quota allocations were made in previous years,
because earlier amendments to farm support programs clearly indi-
cated that the peanut quota program was subject to congressional
modification.
Modifications to government programs by congressional action are
not at all out of the ordinary, and had indeed occurred recently in the
IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION 29
context of the peanut quota program. For example, in 1996, Congress
barred the allocation of such quotas to farms controlled by public
entities or non-producers residing out of state. See Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-127,
§ 155(i)(1)(A)(v), 110 Stat. 888, 927 (1996) (adding 7 U.S.C. § 1358-
1(b)(1)(D)). Similarly, Congress eliminated statutory provisions
establishing specific minimums on the national poundage quota, an
amendment that substantially reduced the peanut quota allocations to
individual farms. Id. § 155(i)(2) (amending 7 U.S.C. § 1358-1(a)(1)).
Accordingly, as the Government asserts, there has been a "‘persistent
congressional refinement of the peanut quota program.’" Br. of
Appellants 29 (quoting Members of the Peanut Quota Holders Assoc.
v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 524, 530 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2004)).
Finally, the USDA’s warnings of forthcoming alterations or revi-
sions to the peanut quota program, received by the Farmers in late
2001 and early 2002, substantially undermine their reliance conten-
tions. As detailed above, the events immediately preceding the 2002
crop year made clear to the Farmers that congressional action on the
peanut quota program was likely to occur. For example, in its Decem-
ber 14, 2001 announcement of the national poundage quota for pea-
nuts, the USDA warned:
The Farm Bill currently being considered by Congress
would dramatically change the peanut program. Poundage
quotas would be eliminated and price support would be
replaced with a target price and deficiency payment plan. If
pending legislation is enacted as law, the 2002 poundage
quota and price support announced by this release may be
altered or rescinded.
J.A. 75 (emphasis added). Similarly, in its January 15, 2002
announcement, the USDA again warned that "[t]he Farm Bill cur-
rently being considered by Congress would change the peanut pro-
gram . . . . If pending legislation is enacted as Law for 2002, the 2002
poundage quota announced according to this notice will be altered or
rescinded." J.A. 78 (emphasis added). Significantly, legislation
repealing the peanut quota program had passed the House of Repre-
sentatives in October 2001, well before the MPCI Policy for the 2002
crop year became final. See 147 Cong. Rec. H6407 (Oct. 5, 2001).
30 IN RE: PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION
In these circumstances, the Farmers were on ample notice in late
2001 and early 2002 of the possibility — indeed, the likelihood — of
major changes (i.e., alteration or rescission) being made to the peanut
quota program. Although the timing of the 2002 Farm Bill was unfor-
tunate for the Farmers, their assertions of reliance on the 2002 farm
poundage quota allocations being made to individual peanut farms are
misplaced, particularly when viewed in the context of the specific
announcements of the USDA.22
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we vacate the district court’s award of
summary judgment to the Farmers and remand for such further pro-
ceedings as may be appropriate.
VACATED AND REMANDED
22
In light of our disposition of these appeals, we need not reach the
Government’s assertions of error concerning the Damages Order. To the
extent the Farmers seek to pursue the class and venue contentions they
have raised on cross-appeal, the district court may revisit these issues in
light of this opinion.