(case involves action against government concerning indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued, governmentally backed insurance policy; trial court granted summary judgment for farmers but trial court decision vacated and case remanded because (1) policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at $.31 quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; (2) prevention doctrine misapplied insomuch as indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and (3) detrimental reliance not present because government programs are subject to congressional modification and farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program).