This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Three suits were not distinguished factually and involved identical questions of law. They were combined for disposition in the district court and for appeal. The Federal Crop Insurance Corp. (D) issued policies to Ps to insure their tobacco crops against weather damage and other hazards. The tobacco crops were to be grown on six farms. Ps established production of tobacco on their acreage. P alleges that their crops were damaged by rain resulting in losses in excess of $35,000. Ps filed their claims with D in a timely fashion but had harvested and sold the depleted crop prior to inspection and had plowed or disked under the tobacco fields to prepare the way for a cover crop of rye to preserve the soil. When the adjuster later inspected the fields, he found the stalks had been largely obscured or obliterated by plowing or disking, and the claims were denied. This was apparently done on the ground that Ps had violated the policy, which required that the stalks on acreage shall not be destroyed until the corporation makes an inspection. The district court ruled that this requirement was a condition precedent and denied recovery under a summary judgment. The court held that the policy provision was a condition precedent to the recovery under the policy and that the failure of Ps to comply worked a forfeiture of benefits for the alleged loss. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.