Review Those Custom Feeding Endorsements

January 12, 2017
Kristine A. Tidgren

A custom feeding endorsement may not cover growers for unexpected or negligent losses to livestock. An opinion from the Iowa Court of Appeals yesterday again raises this important warning.

In Schulz Farm Enterprises v. IMT Insurance, the court found that a custom feeding endorsement in a contract growers’ insurance policy did not provide coverage for the loss of 837 hogs caused by an electrical breaker malfunction in the hog building. This ruling extended the application of Boelman v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 826 N.W.2d 494 (Iowa 2013). Specifically, the 2017 case found that the custom feeding endorsement protected the grower only from damages caused by the hogs, not damage to the hogs.

The facts in the case were typical. A New Hampton, Iowa, farming company contracted with a grower to custom feed its hogs. The grower contacted his insurance agent to secure additional coverage to protect this new operation. The insurance agent recommended that the grower purchase a farmer’s personal liability coverage policy with a custom feeding endorsement for an additional $118 per year. The basic liability policy excluded coverage for property damage arising out of a “custom feeding” operation. It also excluded coverage for damage to any property that must be replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed and for damage to property “in the care of” the insured, unless caused by fire, smoke, or explosion. The custom feeding endorsement stated that the liability policy was extended to apply to “custom feeding” operations performed by the insured. Specifically, the endorsement stated that it acted to delete “the exclusions [under the liability policy] pertaining to custom feeding.”

After the hogs died, the grower attempted to collect under the insurance policy, but the insurer denied the claim. The grower assigned his rights under the policy to the farming company that had owned the hogs, and the farming company sued the insurance company.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company, and the Iowa Court of Appeals upheld that judgment. The court found that the custom feeding endorsement did not remove the policy exclusions for damage to property “in the care of” the insured or for damage stemming from the insured’s work. The farming company argued that because the custom feeding endorsement stated that it deleted “exclusions pertaining to custom feeding,” these additional exclusions, which related to the custom feeding operation, were deleted. The court disagreed, finding that such an interpretation would be a “strained analysis” that would stretch the endorsement terms beyond the bounds of reasonability. Rather, the court ruled that the custom feeding endorsement deleted only the specific "custom feeding exclusion" in the policy. Consequently, the court held that it applied only to protect the farmer from damage caused by the hogs, not to the hogs. In other words, had one of the hogs bitten a neighbor, the farmer would presumably have been covered. But, if the hog freezes to death because of a building malfunction, the farmer has no such coverage. 

The court rested its decision on the 2013 Boelman case. In Boelman, Iowa’s highest court ruled that a custom feeding endorsement did not apply to grant coverage to a custom feeder for the death of 535 hogs due to suffocation. In that policy, the custom feeding endorsement deleted only the specifically-numbered provision of the liability policy excluding coverage for property damage and bodily injury caused by a "custom feeding operation." Other exclusions, which applied to bar coverage, remained in the policy. Unlike the endorsement in the 2017 case, the endorsement in Boelman did not apply more broadly to delete exclusions “pertaining to” custom feeding operations. Nonetheless, the Iowa Court of Appeals in Schulz Farm said the meaning was clear. Only the exclusion clause specifically using the words “custom feeding” was deleted. The other provisions denying coverage for damage to property in the care of the farmer or damage stemming from the farmer’s “work” still applied to bar coverage in this case. The farming company also argued that the grower had a “reasonable expectation” that the hogs would be covered when he purchased the policy. The court disagreed, finding that the additional $118 a year premium did not correspond with the additional risk of insuring the health of the hogs. The court also found that, given the grower’s experience with other operations, it was unlikely that he reasonably believed the hogs were covered.

This case again reminds custom growers, owners of livestock, and lenders that an insurance policy may not always cover what it seems. Because of the holdings of these Iowa cases, persons purchasing custom feeding endorsements must ensure that they specifically cover damages arising from the negligent death or accidental destruction of the livestock at issue. Anything else may leave the grower, the owner, or the lender bearing the full cost of any such loss.

The case is Schulz Farm Enterprises v. IMT Insurance, No. 15-1960 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017). We'll keep you posted!

CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.

RSS​ Facebook Twitter