NCIS Crop Insurance Today Magazine February 2010 Vol 43 No 1
PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP CR OP INSURANCE SERVICES ® INSU RANCE
VOL. 43, NO. 1 FEBRUARY 2010
TODAYTM
Changes to the SRA GOOD FOR FARMERS AND TAXPAYERS? The crop insurance world changes constantly...
Rural Community Insurance Agency, Inc., D/B/A Rural Community Insurance Services. RCIS is an equal opportunity provider. © 2009 Rural Community Insurance Agency, Inc. All rights reserved. TODAY PRES IDENT’S MESSAGE
A Ye2ar0in0R9 eview
Laurie Langstraat, Editor This industry is headed TODAY IS PROVIDED AS A SERVICE OF towards a major transfor - NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES ® mation. This last year, and TO EDUCATE READERS ABOUT THE RISK into the early weeks of MANAGEMENT TOOLS PRODUCERS USE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM 2010, American agriculture THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH has been forced to take PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE. the back seat of the bus on TODAY is published quarterly–February, May, August, and November by our ride back to economic recovery. The past two National Crop Insurance Services 8900 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 600 years have seen the very Overland Park, Kansas 66210 foundation of our economy By Bob Parkerson, President, NCIS and Steve If you move, or if your address is incorrect, shaken. Peoples’ assets please send old address label clipped from recent issue Harms, Chairman, Rain and Hail L.L.C. along with your new or corrected address to have dropped to unbeliev - Laurie Langstraat, Editor, at the above address. able levels or have even been totally wiped off the books. Unemployment is now reach - NCIS Website: http://www.ag-risk.org ing nearly 10 percent, and in some rural areas, unemployment has reached as high as 22.6 percent. As we all face a tightening of the belt, we continue to watch small busi - nesses close their doors and large companies lay off thousands of people. In the mean - time, the government bombards us with the news of billion dollar stimulus packages to jump-start Fortune 500 companies and to produce new employment. Our nation’s debt grows to all-time new levels because of this excess new spending. It has finally begun to dawn on the Administration that we must start some type of repayment plan lest we spend ourselves into chaos. But I fear those who are in Washington have lost sight of NCIS ® EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE production agriculture and rural America in their endeavor to right the ship of state. A Steve Harms, Chairman Steve Rutledge, Vice Chairman prime example of this is the USDA/RMA issuance of a first draft of the Standard Ted Etheredge, Second Vice Chairman Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). This document proposes to cut nearly one-third of the funding for crop insurance delivery to U.S. farmers. This USDA/RMA proposal calls for NCIS ® MANAGEMENT Robert W. Parkerson, President nearly $4 billion to be cut in the next five years, totally disregarding the 2008 Farm Bill Thomas P. Zacharias, Executive Vice President that called for a five-year $6.4 billion reduction. This program, the primary safety net for P. John Owen, General Counsel James M. Crist, Controller American agriculture, is vital to rural communities across the nation. And should this Laurence M. Crane, Vice President Administration continue in its zealous manner to overcorrect an essential part of an indus - Dave Hall, Vice President Frank F. Schnapp, Vice President try that is being called upon to feed not only this country, but others around the world, it will defeat one of the goals this Administration set for itself. That goal is opportunity ; Creative Layout and Design opportunity for a job, opportunity to provide for a family, and opportunity for U.S. farm - by Graphic Arts of Topeka, Inc., Kansas ers and ranchers to do what they do best, without the fear of one year of bad weather wiping out a lifetime of investment and hard work. This industry has agreed to reductions in this program, to take on more responsibili - ty of the program, and to take on additional risk, which together frees up dollars the Winner of The Golden ARC Award USDA can use to reduce its demand on taxpayers and the federal budget. This industry, Printed on recycled paper. Continued on page 23 CROP INSURANCE TODAY 1 CR OP INSU RANCE VOL. 43, NO. 1 FEBRUARY 2010
TODAYTM Table of Contents
1 2009 A Year in Review
4 Changes to the SR A—Good for Farmers and Taxpayers?
8 Measures & Issue s— Estimating Crop Insurance 4 Industry Profitability 14 CAPP Updat e—Proctoring is Required
16 NCIS Goes to Washington
20 Retirement s—Steve Heverly and Gary Schmidt
22 In Memory of Steve Hoops and Ted Lettenmaier
26 Premiums for Crop-Hail and MPCI
28 Insurable Crop s—Locations and Plans
14 35 NCIS Services Spotlight
Visit www.cropinsuranceinamerica.com 20
TODAY crop insurance Changes to the SRA Good for Farmers and Taxpayers?
Milliman, Inc. that explained a methodology for analyzing rates of return and then used that methodology to review empirical results of federally subsidized crop insur - ance from1989 through 2008. The industry responded critically reviewing the Milliman report and its approach as well as produc - ing its own study commissioned by NCIS. The Milliman report concluded that rates of return were more than “reasonable” over the study period. The NCIS study performed By Bill Fischer, Division Manager - by Grant Thorton concluded the opposite. Agricultural Reinsurance, James River Insurance Company This set the stage for SRA negotiations. RMA, in its presentation to industry exec - As of late December 2009, the Risk utives, outlined six objectives for SRA nego - Management Agency (RMA) of the tiations. These objectives are: 1) align A&O USDA had released a draft Standard to delivery costs; 2) ensure continued Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) for the farmer access to crop insurance; 3) provide 2011 reinsurance year set to begin a reasonable rate of return for insurance July 1, 2010. Just after the release, companies; 4) protect producers from high - RMA officials met with crop er costs while equalizing reinsurance per - insurance industry executives to formance across states to more effectively discuss the draft agreement and reach the underserved; 5) simplify the SRA its many changes. Some and make it more transparent; and, changes were cosmetic, some 6) enhance program integrity. improved legal efficiency, While it is clear that some objectives some addressed functionality are met by the proposed SRA, it is not at and service issues that both all apparent that others will be achieved. RMA and industry staff Objectives 2 and 6 may be put in jeop - had been working to ardy if changes in financial terms result in solve for years, and less private resources committed to the finally, other changes program. Objective 5 is of obvious mutu - affected how al benefit while objectives 1, 3, and 4 Approved Insurance generated changes that may not achieve Providers (AIPs) are the stated goals and may actually result in compensated via the the opposite. agreement. Prior to the draft How Did We Get Here? SRA, RMA released In 1980, during the waning days of the two studies by Carter administration, a plan was developed
4 FEBRUARY 2010 to create a public/private partnership for vate reinsurance companies and reinsurance To look back at the federally subsidized crop insurance. It was brokers. During this time, reinsurers offered recognized that private insurers could offer capacity and risk management advice via last three decades with farmers and taxpayers certain values and portfolio analysis and innovative reinsur - the view that crop advantages that only non-government enti - ance structures. This allowed AIPs to posi - insurance companies ties were able. Specifically, increased farmer tion themselves to best serve farmers and be participation, improve delivery efficiency, as efficient as possible in the delivery of simply delivered a and taxpayer value were desired of this new crop insurance. product that USDA/RMA business relationship. provided, grossly The early years were challenging. Private/Public Partnership understates the value Government and industry struggled to cre - An advantage for farmers and the industry has created. ate a partnership that truly achieved stated value for taxpayers goals. At first, the structure was simply one To look back at the last three decades of marketing whereby the government paid with the view that crop insurance compa - a fee to private insurance companies and nies simply delivered a product that rather worked with FCIC and RMA to agents to market the government product. USDA/RMA provided, grossly understates improve the program. These advancements Challenges with crop insurance fundamen - the value the industry has created. Private are direct results of the business relationship tals and a lack of true risk management innovation created revenue products that developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s value impeded progress. most corn, soybean and wheat farmers rely that RMA’s new draft SRA seeks to change. If As the 1980s progressed, contractual on today. In fact, a majority of premium is implemented these changes may cause the changes between companies and the gov - written on forms developed by private relationship between RMA and the industry ernment were implemented to create incen - insurers. Additionally, AIPs and their trade to revert early structures used prior to current tives for marketing success. It was recog - associations (NCIS, AACI and CIRB) have successes. nized that a fee to delivery policies wasn’t provided countless improvements to under - achieving the goal on its own. Insurance writing, loss adjustment, risk management Proposed Changes to the entities were likely to grow and provide and quality controls. Technological SRA Could Put better service if they were given opportuni - advancements such as farm mapping, on- Crop Insurance ties to earn a return on risk capital. This line insurance access and reporting have realization resulted in a shift toward engag - Success at Risk also been achieved by private insurance Recently a stretch of positive returns ing private insurers more fully as profes - companies. have been generated and RMA seeks, in sional risk transfer organizations by provid - In addition to these advances, crop insur - the words of Administrator William ing incentives through underwriting oppor - ers have improved efficiency of delivery Murphy, to “reaffirm itself as the primary tunity. These changes expanded the pro - through information technology and reinsurer of this business.” This statement gram and ultimately provided more value to enhanced productivity. These efficiencies was made in direct response to a Milliman constituent farmers while generating finan - are manifested by private insurers’ ability to study critique which pointed out the fail - cial stability for taxpayers. deliver a much more complicated product ure to take into account the cost of rein - As reforms continued into the early at half the rate of the early 1990s. surance. RMA has stated that it can reduce 1990s, CAT coverage was introduced as an Approximately 15 years ago, AIPs were (or eliminate as implied) reinsurance costs alternative to ad hoc disaster programs. reimbursed for delivery costs at a rate in by assuming the lion’s share of crop insur - Insurance agents began working more excess of 30 percent of risk premiums. After ance risk. This objective is purported to be closely with farmers and lenders to develop many rounds of reductions, the rate will be achieved by significantly reducing the better risk management plans that incorpo - slightly more than half this amount today. amount of risk assumed by private insur - rated crop insurance. Finally, private indus - Yet, RMA seeks more drastic cuts to this rate ers and shifting that risk back to taxpayers. try innovation created revenue insurance in the draft SRA. These cuts could outpace SRA financial terms are changed drasti - that today has largely replaced yield based industry improvements and put program cally in the draft agreement. The seven coverage for major crops. This cooperative integrity at risk. reinsurance funds are reduced to two and effort between RMA and the industry result - Crop insurers and their risk management the overall risk bearing by private insurers ed in an improved view of crop insurance partners in the reinsurance industry have is cut by more than 50 percent. This ini - by farmers, lenders and Congress. assumed significant financial risk from crop tially seems to contradict the Milliman Throughout the last three decades crop insurance. In recent years, this risk assump - study that indicated crop insurers are insurance companies also developed pro - tion has provided a positive underwriting earning more than a reasonable return for fessional underwriting, marketing, loss return. However, in the late 1980s and early the risk they bear. However, opportunities adjustment, legal and risk management 1990s, the opposite was true. The industry for underwriting gain are also reduced, capabilities. The latter was assisted by pri - and reinsures didn’t walk away then but, and by an even greater amount in an
CROP INSURANCE TODAY 5 attempt to bring the Milliman rate of subsidized crop insurance is not simply annual fluctuations in results will vary return calculations into line with RMA’s capacity to AIPs. It is fundamentally part widely, and it must be considered that, in view of reasonableness. of the system that created the value farm - any given year, a substantial financial loss RMA also attempts to shift the playing ers and taxpayers receive through crop can occur. field between states by grouping them insurance today. This is achieved, via a The fact is, despite a run of good luck, into categories and offering different system of financial incentives that drive real financial risk still exists in crop insur - financial terms. The stated goal of “equal - AIPs to continue to improve delivery ance. The next severe drought or crop izing reinsurance performance across function and efficiency. disaster may simply be lurking right states to more effectively reach the Additionally, taxpayers are put at around the corner. Taxpayers via the fed - underserved” may not be met by this greater financial risk when RMA and eral government could financially bear the structure and actually the opposite could other government oversight agencies loss but, as federal budget deficits and our be achieved when A&O reimbursement such as GAO fail to recognize the true nation’s debt continues to skyrocket, cuts are considered in conjunction. value of risk transfer. When examining should the government seek to retain FCIC and the federal government in crop insurance returns, only long-term more exposure and simultaneously risk general do not “need” private insurers to expected results appear to have been breaking down the system that has and is assume large amounts of crop insurance considered. RMA in its comments and working well for the American farmer? risk because ultimately the U.S. treasury proposals via the draft SRA seem to indi - As RMA continues to work toward a has capacity. However, is it prudent to cate that potential financial loss is mean - new agreement with crop insurers some significantly reduce risk borne by private ingless to the agency and taxpayers. This understanding of historical achievements insurance in an attempt to bring down attitude is akin to saying those who have over the last three decades should be rates of return and avoid the “cost” of pri - financial capacity to self insure will find considered. Private insurers and reinsur - vate reinsurance? The Grant Thorton no value in risk transfer. Economically ers stand ready to work with RMA and study demonstrates that crop insurance this is simply not true and most certainly FCIC to craft an agreement that is fair, rates of return are not excessive when is not prudent. If the program is expect - maintains the system that has generated properly compared to other opportuni - ed to generate positive underwriting significant success, and improves the ties. And private reinsurance on federally experience over a long period of time value for farmers and taxpayers.
Errors and Omission Insurance For Your Agency Full lines of coverage including MPCI Crop Insurance We will work diligently to offer you quotes with reputable companies at competitive prices To obtain a quote for your agency call 1-800-769-6015 American Insurance Services, LLC. Premium financing is available We have over 35 years experience in all lines of insurance www.tomstanleyinsurance.com
6 FEBRUARY 2010 J
Experience makes the difference. Season after season.
We’re leaders working together.
Our customers depend on our experience. That’s why, at John Deere Risk Protection*, we select only the most experienced agents in a given area; talented professionals who know the land and the people. Then we give them the tools to make their customer relationships even stronger — with RXU DJHQW FHUWL÷FDWLRQ SURJUDP GHDOHU QHWZRUNV WUDLQLQJ LQ precision farming technology and an expert support team. That’s what sets our agents apart and keeps customers coming back season after season. To see how you can become a select John Deere Risk Protection agent, call 1-866-404-9057.
*John Deere Risk Protection, Inc. (dba JDRP Crop Insurance Services in California) is the crop insurance Managing General Agent for The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions and is subject to actual policy language. John Deere Risk Protection and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania are equal opportunity providers. www.JohnDeereRiskProtection.com CR0810523 Litho in U.S.A. (09-09) 2009 UPDATE Grant thornton Report Measures & Issues Estimating Crop Insurance Industry Profitability
By Thomas P. Zacharias, Frank Schnapp, Keith Collins, NCIS; David Hazels and David Wharton, Grant Thornton LLP
On behalf of its member companies, NCIS has, over the past several years, spon - sored a series of industry-level reports of crop insurance profitability. The purpose of these reports has been to provide a consis - tent and transparent measure of the prof - itability of the crop insurance industry. In addition to providing industry profitability measures, these reports have also addressed the risk profile of the industry and issues related to the cost efficiency of the industry delivery system. This article is a summary of the most recent 2009 Grant Thornton (GT) report. 1 The article is organ - ized as follows. First, a background section describing the MPCI program along with role of the private crop insurance industry is provided. This is followed by a summary of the methodology and results of the 2009 GT report. The article concludes with a brief assessment of the GT analysis in rela - tion to alternative perspectives for measur - ing the profitability and effectiveness of pri - vate sector participation in the federal crop insurance program.
Background of the Federal Crop Insurance Program The Business Relationship: The Federal crop insurance program (hereafter referred to as the Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Program or MPCI) is a public-private part - nership between the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) and pri - vate sector crop insurance companies,
8 FEBRUARY 2010 referred to as Approved Insurance Providers to AIPs and provides premium subsidies to text. The GT report addresses this issue by (AIPs). The FCIC is managed by the USDA’s farmers so that premiums are affordable. comparing AIP results for the MPCI pro - Risk Management Agency (RMA). The for - Industry’s Role: The role of the AIP is to gram to the U.S. Property & Casualty (P&C) mal business relationship between FCIC and market insurance to farmers, determine industry as a whole. In effect, the P&C the AIPs is contractually defined by the farmer eligibility, collect premiums, deter - industry is used as the benchmark for eval - terms of the Standard Reinsurance mine crop loss, and make indemnity pay - uating MPCI financial performance. Before Agreement (SRA) signed by FCIC and each ments. AIPs are also responsible for agent proceeding, it is important to understand individual AIP. The SRA establishes the and adjuster training, comprehensive report - that the two industries have fundamental financial and oversight arrangements ing of crop insurance program data, program operational differences that need to be con - between the FCIC and the industry. This compliance and quality control. Corporate sidered in any comparison of their relative business relationship has been in place since headquarters for most of the AIPs are locat - financial performance. The most significant the early 1980s. ed primarily throughout the Midwest and The Program Itself: The MPCI program is Texas. Most AIPs have regional offices across available throughout the U.S., but the bulk the U.S. Total direct industry employment The GT report addresses of the insurance protection is concentrated including agents, adjusters, and company this issue by comparing in the Corn Belt and the Plains states. Corn, staff is approximately 18,000. soybeans and wheat account for about 80 With regard to the financial relationship AIP results for the MPCI percent of the premium. For crop year 2008, between FCIC and the AIPs, AIPs are paid an program to the U.S. the MPCI program provided coverage on administrative and operating (A&O) pay - 272 million acres (approximately 80 percent ment for the costs incurred in delivering crop Property & Casualty (P&C) of all eligible acreage for major crops) for an insurance to farmers. A&O payments are insured liability of $89.9 billion. In 2008, made by FCIC on behalf of farmers to keep industry as a whole. more than 80 percent of total program pre - premium more affordable. In conventional mium was insured under revenue policies lines of insurance, company operating issue is the limitation placed on crop insur - and about 70 percent of premium was on expenses would otherwise be included in ance companies from engaging in business policies with coverage levels of 70 percent the premium. Program delivery expenses management practices common to P&C or more. In addition to traditional agricultur - include wages and salaries, agent commis - insurers. Unlike P&C insurers, crop insurers al and horticultural crops, clam and livestock sion, loss adjustment expense, and other have no control over the rates they charge price insurance policies are available, but operating and overhead expenses such as their policyholders. Instead, AIPs are participation is limited. Beginning with 2007, information technology systems and rental of required to charge farmers the rates pub - program acreage has increased primarily office space. lished by RMA. In comparison, most large due to the introduction of a pasture, range - Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the P&C insurers are able to issue policies land, and forage program. financial relationship between FCIC and the through a number of different programs, The overall MPCI program loss ratio AIPs is the sharing of underwriting gains and such as for superior, standard, and substan - (indemnities divided by total premiums) has losses between FCIC and the AIPs. The dard risks, each with its own rate level. been favorable since the mid 1990s, and specifics of the relationship are found in the From an underwriting perspective, crop below 1.0 in most years. Total premium for risk sharing formulas of the SRA. AIPs’ insurers are required under the SRA to issue 2008 was $9.9 billion with approximately underwriting gains and losses represent the policies to any eligible farmer regardless of $8.7 billion in indemnity payments for a loss difference between the AIPs share of the risk profile of that individual. With rare ratio of 0.88. Prior to the Federal Crop retained premium and retained losses. exceptions, P&C insurers are allowed to Insurance Reform Act of 1994 and most of Retention levels can vary by AIP based on underwrite their risks, that is, to choose the 1980s, the MPCI program loss ratio aver - the size of the company, its preference for whether or not to accept each risk or to aged well over 1.0. risk, and its regional distribution of policies. modify the coverage being provided in RMA’s Role: In its role as regulator, RMA At the national level, the AIPs retain over order to improve the acceptability of the is responsible for oversight of the industry’s 80% of program premium. When program exposure. Since these restrictions on the financial condition, and RMA is charged with loss ratios exceed predetermined thresholds ability to engage in normal rating and ensuring that industry is in compliance with specified in the SRA, FCIC reinsures a portion underwriting practices increase the financial agency regulations and procedures. RMA of these excess losses. risk of crop insurers as compared to P&C also negotiates the Standard Reinsurance insurers, the financial incentives and oppor - Agreement on behalf of USDA. In its admin - 2009 Grant Thornton tunities for participating in the crop insur - istrative role, RMA establishes policy lan - Report ance industry are somewhat different and guage, formulates premium rates, develops Methodology: Because of the unique need to be addressed in the development underwriting requirements for the program, nature of the MCPI program, the estimation of profitability comparisons for the two shares in underwriting gains and losses with and comparisons of crop insurance industry industries. In addition, P&C insurers have the AIPs, makes a delivery expense payment profitability must be placed in proper con - the ability to recoup losses in prior years
CROP INSURANCE TODAY 9 through rate increases and schedule rating um than are MPCI industry expenses. 2 contrast, investment income is not included modifications. Moreover, P&C insurers may Comparisons made on this basis could in MPCI industry net income. The primary modify their premium rate structure show the MPCI industry as being more reason for this is that the timing of the cash depending upon the expectation or realiza - profitable than the P&C industry simply due flows for MPCI premiums and indemnities tion of investment income. to the fact that the MPCI industry is much provides no opportunity for crop insurers With their greater ability to select or more cost effective in delivering insurance to earn investment income on the funds. modify risks, control rates, maintain a vari - to its policyholders. The second approach P&C insurers collect premiums at the time ety of programs each with its own rate avoids this distortion and has the further policies are issued and pay claims much level, recoup past losses, adjust rates to advantage that profitability and expenses later, whereas crop insurance premiums are account for investment income gains or are measured in relation to the benefits collected at harvest, essentially at the same losses, and select the markets in which they received by policyholders, that is, to the time that claims are paid. Although MPCI operate, P&C insurers have much greater indemnities paid under each program. The carriers have the opportunity to earn invest - flexibility in their operations in comparison GT report adopted the second approach in ment income, it is not a significant source to insurers participating in the MPCI pro - that this method is both more meaningful of profitability associated with being gram. These operational differences have and more reliable. More specifically, the involved in the crop insurance program. major implications for the specification and GT report places the premiums for the two The fundamental sources of profitability for definitions of net income which will be dis - industries on a consistent basis by remov - AIPs are underwriting gains earned through cussed shortly. ing the expense load portion of P&C the SRA and, to a much lesser extent, any Another important difference between industry premiums. With this adjustment, potential cost savings in relation to the A&O the crop insurance industry and the P&C the restated P&C and MPCI premiums can reimbursement. Investment income is mini - industry is the relative size of the two pro - be considered to represent the expected mal in comparison. Given the diverse struc - grams. The P&C industry wrote almost indemnities for each program. As noted ture of companies writing crop insurance, $440 billion in net earned premium in 2008 above, the use of these premiums in the any measure of investment income would versus $8 billion of retained premium for denominators of the income and expense be an imputed rather than an actual docu - the crop insurance industry. The size differ - ratios measures the financial performance mented amount and would be based on a ence between the two industries makes it of both industries in dollars of insurance number of arbitrary financial assumptions. essential to develop income and expense benefits delivered to policyholders. Consequently, an accurate estimate of measures as ratios to premium rather than Next, net income measures for the two investment income for the MPCI program is absolute dollar terms. industries need to be defined. For the P&C neither reliable nor readily available. The initial step in the computation of industry, net income is defined as under - Conversely, P&C insurers view underwrit - income and expense ratios is to ensure that writing gains, net of expenses and after ing gains and investment income as equal - premiums for the two industries are stated reinsurance, plus any investment income. ly important sources of profitability, and on a comparable basis. For the P&C indus - For MPCI, net income consists of net under - structure their business plans accordingly. try, premiums are intended to cover the writing gains, following the application of For P&C insurers, inadequate investment insurer’s expected indemnity payments as the reinsurance and quota share provisions gains can be offset by increases to their well as commissions, loss adjustment of the SRA, plus the net difference between rates or a transfer of business to their high - expenses, and other overhead costs of run - A&O reimbursements and industry expens - er rated programs, which is not the case for ning the company. For crop insurance, es. This difference between industry MPCI insurers. While it could be argued RMA-developed premiums are intended to expenses and A&O reimbursement is a real that the inclusion of investment income cover only expected indemnities and do cost to the MPCI industry, just as net would slightly increase the net income of not include company delivery expenses. As expenses are to the P&C industry. The GT the MPCI program, an adjustment for com - stated earlier, RMA provides a separate report includes the entire amount of the mercial reinsurance would have the oppo - A&O payment to compensate companies industry’s operating expenses, not just site effect. Commercial reinsurance is a sig - for their costs of program delivery, which those defined as “allowable expenses” by nificant cost item for AIPs, and including may or may not be sufficient to cover an RMA. Since the A&O payments are general - commercial reinsurance would reduce the AIP’s actual expenses. Restating the premi - ly less than the industry’s actual expenses, net income of the MPCI program. In com - um for the two programs on a consistent net income for the industry is often substan - bination, these two adjustments would be basis could be done in either of two ways. tially less than the net underwriting gains. expected to reduce MPCI net income from One approach would be to include A&O as A final consideration in comparing net the level indicated in the GT report. part of the MPCI premium, while the alter - income between the two industries is the Data Sources: To the maximum extent native would be to exclude expenses from treatment of investment income and com - possible, the GT report uses data that is the P&C premium. The first approach dis - mercial reinsurance. P&C industry results publicly available. While individual compa - torts the comparison because P&C expens - shown in the GT report include investment ny results are not publicly available due to es are a much larger portion of the premi - income and are net of all reinsurance. In confidentiality concerns, industry-level data
10 FEBRUARY 2010 MPCI vs. P&C Pre-tax Net Income
Table 1. 40% m
u 35% i
m 30% e
r 25% P 20% d
e 15% t s 10% u j 5% d
A 0 /
e -5%
m -10% o
c -15% n I -20% t
e -25%
N -30% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 I MPCI I P&C for both the P&C industry and the MPCI For ten of the 17 years, the P&C industry same downward trend as a percent of gross program is, for the most part, publicly avail - was more profitable on this basis than the premiums as A&O, yet they remained high - able. Use of data from public sources pro - MPCI industry. The P&C industry realized er than the average A&O reimbursement vides transparency in order that the results an annual net loss in only one year, 2001, rate in every year from 1997 through 2008. can be easily verified by third parties. primarily due to the extraordinary losses The shortfall of A&O reimbursements to Financial results for the P&C industry associated with September 11. The MPCI cover industry expenses reached a maxi - were obtained directly from Aggregates program lost money in two years between mum in 2002 of 6.9% of premium but and Averages published by A.M. Best. 1992 and 2008 (1993 and 2002). In terms of shrank to 1.6% of premium by 2008. Since Although MPCI results are also available in risk, the volatility of the MPCI industry’s his - net income is the sum of the industry’s pure A.M. Best, this information is incomplete torical pre-tax net income ratio (as meas - underwriting gains or losses and the gain or and is not considered to be reliable due to ured by the standard deviation) was 12.3%, loss on expense reimbursements, any A&O accounting adjustments and reinsurance while volatility for the P&C industry was shortfall is a direct penalty to the profitabil - considerations which have no direct bear - only 10.1%. In other words, the MPCI indus - ity of the industry. ing on the performance on the MPCI pro - try is less profitable than the P&C industry gram, nor can it be easily reconciled to despite being riskier than P&C. Comparison to the MPCI program data available from RMA. The GT report also analyzes adequacy recent Milliman studies For MPCI, industry-level underwriting of A&O reimbursements in relation to AIP One issue not addressed in the GT gains or losses and A&O reimbursements expense outlays to deliver the program. report is an evaluation of the relative merits are also released publicly but not on a reg - A&O is paid as a percentage of gross pre - of the selected approach to measuring prof - ular schedule. Gross and retained premi - miums using payment rates specified in the itability as compared to alternative meth - ums for all years were obtained from RMA SRA. Actual delivery expenses are comput - ods, such as the approach employed in the reports. A&O reimbursements and net ed as a percent of gross premiums, consis - two recent Milliman studies prepared on underwriting gains for 2008 were based on tent with the conventional approach used behalf of RMA. 5 Milliman adopts return on the survey of AIPs, while prior years were by the P&C insurance industry and support - equity as its profitability measure, comput - available from RMA. Actual expenses ed by the language of the Federal Crop ed as the industry’s pure underwriting gains incurred, including expenses not allowed Insurance Act. As shown in Table 2, the plus investment income, with the total by RMA, were obtained from the survey or government has imposed dramatic reduc - divided by industry surplus. 6 The Milliman from industrywide results published in ear - tions in A&O reimbursements over time, analysis has a number of easily identifiable lier years. from about 35% of premium in the early shortcomings, 7 including the failure to rec - Results: The ratio of MPCI’s Pretax Net 1990’s to roughly 20% in 2008. Further ognize that A&O reimbursements have Income as a percent of Adjusted Retained reductions imposed by the 2008 Farm Bill been insufficient to cover all of the indus - Premium 3 averaged 14.2% during the peri - came into force during 2009 but are not try’s expenses, as well as the exclusion of od 1992 - 2008. For the same period, the included in the chart. In response to the commercial reinsurance from the industry’s P&C industry’s ratio of Pretax Net Income rapid growth of the program and cutbacks net income. The comparison of historical as a percent of Adjusted Net Earned in A&O, the industry has become much results to a “reasonable rate of return” in the Premium 4 averaged 17.5%. These results more cost effective over time. Actual deliv - Milliman reports can also be misleading in are presented on an annual basis in Table 1. ery expenses reported by the AIPs show the that it creates the impression that the indus -
CROP INSURANCE TODAY 11 MPCI Expenses vs. A&O Reimbursements
Table 2. 40% 35% m u i 30% m e r
P 25% s s o
r 20% G f
o 15% t n e
c 10% r e P 5% 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenses A&O Reimbursements try earns excessive profits. In reality, the industry as a whole by allocating the equi - possess any profitability or risk-return reports cannot be used to evaluate the cur - ty of the P&C industry to the MPCI indus - advantages relative to the P&C industry. rent and expected profitability of the pro - try. The allocation formula is essentially a Instead, the MPCI industry is less profitable gram in that the report fails to account for crude measure of the volume of each line as well as being more risky than the P&C recent reductions in A&O imposed by the of insurance. In theory, the objective of the industry. Furthermore, the MPCI program is 2008 Farm Bill as well as changes to the procedure is to allocate equity to each line delivered on a much more cost effective program itself over time. The use of an of insurance in proportion to its risk. In basis than the P&C industry. These results experience period including only a single practice, the method assumes that the risk are consistent with industry studies in pre - catastrophic weather event also raises for a line of insurance is measured by the vious years. It is hoped that these results doubts regarding the usefulness of the sum of its premiums and unpaid loss and along with the discussion on methodologi - Milliman result as an estimate of the histor - premium reserves. Not only is this method cal issues involved in measuring industry ical performance of the program. The without theoretical support, the concept is performance will improve our understand - Milliman report itself cautions “against seriously flawed, particularly for MPCI and ing of the crop insurance program. drawing any strong conclusions on the ade - other high risk types of catastrophic prop - quacy or excessiveness of the historical erty insurance which carry minimal loss Footnotes 1 Grant Thornton LLP was engaged by NCIS to returns,” noting that the inclusion of a sec - reserves due to the rapid settlement of update the “Federal Crop Insurance Program ond catastrophic year similar in magnitude claims. In addition, the assumption that Profitability and Effectiveness Analysis 2008 to 1993 would reduce the industry’s return capital can be allocated across the P&C Update” with 2008 results. The 2009 Update is available at http://www.ag-risk.org/ NCIS - on equity from 17.1% to 15.6%. 8 industry is unrealistic from a real-world PUBS/SpecRPTS/GrantThornton/Grant_Thornt Perhaps the most questionable aspect perspective. While allocation of capital can on_Report-2009_FINAL.pdf . of the Milliman study is its evaluation of be used internally by an individual insurer 2 60.2% vs. 27.7% of adjusted premium over the 1992-2008 period, per GT Exhibit 5. equity capital for the MPCI industry. Since to judge the relative performance of its 3 Adjusted for the 5% Quota Share provision in equity is the denominator of the Return on individual market segments, the idea that effect from 2005 through 2008. 4 Adjusted to remove expenses, as discussed Equity ratio, any error in this figure can capital can be reallocated to other insurers above. grossly misstate the industry’s profitability. to meet the objectives of a computational 5 The Milliman reports can be found at In addition, since equity is the basis on method is clearly not legitimate. The GT http://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/2009/milliman reasonablerate.pdf and http://www.rma.usda which the investment income in the method avoids the shortcomings of the .gov/pubs/2009/millimanhistoricalrate.pdf , numerator of the Return on Equity ratio is Milliman approach by focusing on measur - with a corrected version of Table 8 at calculated, any error in determining equity able and verifiable results without reliance http://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/2009/milliman historicalratetable8.pdf . can distort the Return on Equity through on allocation methods or arbitrary assump - 6 Surplus represents the book value of an insurer this means as well. Rather than obtaining tions. under Statutory Accounting Principles and corre - the actual equity for individual AIPs or sponds closely to GAAP book value. Surplus is used interchangeably with capital and equity in using the minimum capital requirement Summary and this discussion. imposed by Federal regulations for partic - Conclusions 7 See “Industry Response to Milliman Reports” ipation in the program, Milliman develops Results of the 2009 GT update continue National Crop Insurance Services, Inc., October 5, 2009. an estimate of the equity for the MPCI to indicate that the MPCI program does not 8 Milliman Historical Rate of Return Analysis, p. 28.
12 FEBRUARY 2010
CAPP UPDATE Crop Adjuster Proficiency Program Proctoring is Required
approved CAPP proctor a time and place for you to take the CAPP exam(s). Any CAPP exams that remained untaken or unsuccessfully completed on February 1, 2010, will need to be proctored, even if you have already completed one or two of the three CAPP exams. When you have successfully completed all three CAPP exams, a CAPP card will be issued. The word “Proctored” will only appear on CAPP cards for those who have success - By Dr. Laurence M. Crane, NCIS fully completed all three exams under the supervision of a proctor. If your card As directed by the NCIS Board of does not indicate that the CAPP exams Directors, proctoring became mandatory were proctored and your state requires that for all CAPP exams, beginning February 1, the qualifying exam be proctored, you may 2010. Prior to this time proctoring was retake any successfully completed un-proc - available as part of CAPP but was option - tored CAPP exam(s) under the supervision al. Proctoring increases the integrity of the of a proctor. Upon successful completion examination process and enhances the of the three proctored CAPP exams, your credibility of CAPP accreditation with reg - CAPP card will be re-issued with the ulators and state insurance departments. “Proctored” designation. To complete a CAPP exam, you will need to do so under the supervision of Card Renewal an approved CAPP proctor. The By the end of the year over 4,000 approved CAPP proctor is required to adjusters had successfully completed all enter his/her Proctor Login ID and three CAPP exams and received their indi - Password immediately before and imme - vidualized accreditation card. While the diately after you complete the exam (but pace has decreased for 2010, we continue before the exam is submitted for grad - to have additional adjusters complete their ing), verifying that he/she has been pres - CAPP accreditation each day. Annual ent during the entire duration of the renewal cards were issued in January to all exam, and that you followed the estab - who were current with their CAPP contin - lished examination procedures. uing education requirements (SRA mandat - Contact your company’s CAPP ed company level structured training). All Administrator to find an approved CAPP adjusters who failed to meet these CE proctor when you are prepared to com - requirements must re-take the three CAPP plete the CAPP exam(s). Arrange with the exams to again receive accreditation.
14 FEBRUARY 2010 PROCTOR DUTIES&GUIDELINES Prior to a student submitting a completed on-line exam, you will be asked to certify that you met certain duties outlined below. Failure to certify that you met the requested duties will result in the student’s exam not being accepted by the CAPP system.
1 It is the adjuster’s responsibility to contact the proctor to make arrangements that allow for the taking of CAPP exams. 2 Prior to the exam date, you will need to establish a proctor ID and password with the CAPP system. (See the Proctor ID and Password establishment and use guide on the CAPP website for further instructions.) 3 Do not provide your proctor user ID and password to any student or individual and protect it from view when entering them into the CAPP system. DURING EXAMS
4 Students should have already logged on to the CAPP website and established their user account and possibly taken the prac - tice exam to prepare for the three required CAPP exams. 5 Verify that the individual logged in to take the CAPP exams is indeed that individual by requesting an acceptable form of a photo I.D., e.g., a valid driver’s license. 6 Eliminate distractions and ability to communicate with others electronically by requesting that the student turn off their cellular phone or any other electronic communication devices. The student may not access email by any means, nor may they access any other website while taking an exam. 7 Ensure that the student works independently during the exam and neither receives or provides assistance to others during the exam, i.e., coaching by a proctor or anyone else is prohibited. 8 Students are allowed to bring copies of the study materials and refer to them during the exam. Students may also access these materials electronically during the exam as they would during their normal job duties. These materials are available via the CAPP website for downloading to the computer used for the exam. The only materials allowed during the exam are: a) General Insurance Terms, Concepts, and Federal Regulations Governing the Federal Crop Insurance Program Study Guide; b) Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Common Crop Policy Basic Provisions; and, c) MPCI Loss Adjustment Manual (LAM). 9 The CAPP system is designed to lock the ability to print. Students are not allowed to copy, either by hand or other means, exam questions for later use. Notes taken during the exam should not be made in study materials, but on a separate note pad or sheet of paper. Any notes made during the exam are to be turned in and disposed of properly to protect the integrity of the exam. However, any clarifying notes and markings they have in their copies of these approved study materials are acceptable. 10 The student should not be left alone during an exam. 11Complete the Proctor online certification statements at the completion of the exam. REMINDERS
12 The CAPP system times the exam and therefore does not require the proctor to record the start and ending time of exams. 13 The student is not required to take all three exams in one sitting, but may do so. Should a student not pass an exam, they may continue with the remaining exams. Any failed exam has a seven day lock-out period before they may retake the failed exam. 14 The CAPP is designed as a learning tool and allows for the online review of incorrect responses after submission of the exams.
CROP INSURANCE TODAY 15 TODAY crop insurance Goes to NCWIASSHINGTON Working with the Crop-Hail Policy, that region. In the fall of 2009, the Procedures, and Loss Adjustment (CHP - Committee traveled to the Pacific PLA) Committee has been an important Northwest, specifically to Washington state, part of the work that I am involved with at to visit some growers’ fields, as well as a NCIS. It has been a rewarding time getting University Research Center, and conduct its to know the members of the committee semi-annual meeting. and the issues that affect the Crop-Hail The CHPPLA Committee is made up of insurance industry. One of the great parts individuals from the NCIS member compa - of working with this Committee is that we, nies that sell crop-hail Insurance. The com - on occasion, will travel to areas of the mittee members involved with the trip country to see the different types of agri - were: Jeff Meyer, Rain and Hail L.L.C.; Larry By Dr. Mark Zarnstorff, NCIS culture and the variety of crops grown in Burkhart, RCIS; Tom Gowdy, ARMtech
Dr. Markus Keller discussing grapes.
16 FEBRUARY 2010 Eric Lippa sampling apples affected by hail.
Insurance Services; Roger Ninness, Country Insurance & Financial Services; Barry Olson, NAU Country Insurance; Crop-Hail Mark Splettstaszer, Great American Insurance; and, Tom Vetter, ProAg PPLA Committee Members Insurance. They were joined by Loretta Greg Meek, Chairman , - Barry Olson - Sobba, David Hall and myself, from NCIS. Farmers Mutual Hail Ins. Co. of Iowa NAU Country Insurance There are two main reasons for the Larry Burkhart - Russell Slade - Committee’s “off-site” meetings: 1) to learn Rural Community Insurance Services CGB Diversified Services about the different crops and production Tom Gowdy - Mark Splettstaszer - methods that are common to areas they ARM tech Insurance Services Great American Ins. Co. visit; and, 2) to better understand how hail Shirley Linn - Tom Vetter - storms affect these crops under those con - Grinnell Mutual ProAg ditions. Most of the expertise of the Jeff Meyer - Don Nelson - Committee is on the “standard” crops, i.e. Rain and Hail L.L.C. American Farm Bureau Ins. Services corn, wheat, soybeans, etc., so going to Roger Ninness - areas where specialty crops are being COUNTRY Financial grown allows us to better understand the entire industry. for the field tour section of our meeting. age to a crop of apples. It also gave the The Committee met in Prosser, Wash., The field tour started off with a visit to an committee an opportunity to discuss the with Eric Lippa (ARMtech Insurance apple orchard that had been hit by hail proposed changes in the Northwest Apple Services) and Nancy Michael (Rural earlier in the year. This visit allowed us to Endorsement with regard to the different Community Insurance Services) from the learn about the various issues associated grading standards that are used in NCIS Northwest Regional/State Committee with sampling and determining hail dam - Washington State as compared with the
CROP INSURANCE TODAY 17 Dr. Robert Stevens discussing hop production. rest of the U.S. We were also able to see that have been rooted to dwarf rootstocks Some of the most difficult to control dis - the new management systems that have and then train onto trellis wires. eases that affect these crops are soil-borne been used for the past 10 years or so, The committee visited a packing com - viruses that greatly diminish production. where they plant high densities of trees pany where the apples are packed accord - Wine grapes and hops, both, are general - ing to specific grading and marketing ly propagated by grafting the desirable requirements. This company has started cultivars onto specific rootstocks that can packing both conventionaly produced help with diseases, insects, and growth of These off-site meetings apples as well as organic production. the plants. Currently, viruses are the most One of the highlights of the field tours difficult to control, affecting hops and have proven to be very was the chance to visit the Washington grapes in this area. Research has found valuable for the Committee State University - Prosser Irrigated ways of producing virus-free rootstocks Agriculture Research & Extension Center. from callus material, which is then grown members and NCIS staff so This research center works with many of out into full plants. The research center they have a chance to learn the high-value specialty crops that are receives many new types of rootstocks grown in the area, such as apples, wine and maintains these different types as about some crops they and juice grapes, and hops. We met with virus free material, which is made avail - may not normally work Dr. Robert Stevens, who retired soon after able to producers. our visit as the director of the station, and These off-site meetings have proven to with. This provides them had a chance to see some of the research be very valuable for the Committee mem - invaluable information as that is going on with specialty crops. The bers and NCIS staff so they have a chance tour focused on wine grapes, because of to learn about some crops they may not well as provides them the increase in acreage in this area, as well normally work with. This provides them as hops. The center serves as a location invaluable information as well as provides contacts when there are where virus-free root stocks are being pro - them contacts when there are issues with issues with these crops. duced for both wine grapes and hops. these crops.
18 FEBRUARY 2010 . ( ( 3 , 1 * , 7 6 , 0 3 / (
*HDU XS IRU VSULQJ ZLWK FURS LQVXUDQFH IURP 1$8 &RXQWU\ ,QVXUDQFH $JHQWV DQG IDUPHUV EHQHILW IURP RXU ($6 7KLV VHUYLFH LV DYDLODEOH IUHHRIFKDUJH WR DOO FXUUHQW 1$8 &RXQWU\ SROLF\KROGHUV VR FRQWDFW XV WRGD\ 1$ 8 0 3 & , ʈ : ::1$ 8 & 2 817 5 < & 2 0 1$8 &RXQWU\ ,QVXUDQFH &RPSDQ\ LV DQ (TXDO 2SSRUWXQLW\ 3URYLGHU 1$8 &RXQWU\ ,QVXUDQFH &RPSDQ\ $OO ULJKWV UHVHUYHG TODAY crop insurance Retirements Steve Heverly Gary Schmidt Steve Heverly, Product Manager for Rain and Hail L.L.C., Gary Schmidt grew up in Bloomington, Ill. and graduated from and Gary Schmidt, Crop Hail Underwriting Analyst for Rural Illinois State University in 1970 with a B.S. degree in History. He Community Insurance Services, are both retiring in early 2010 received a Master’s Degree in History in 1977 from the same univer - from their respective companies. In addition to their work at sity and taught American History at Bloomington Junior High School Rain and Hail and RCIS, both men have served for many (the same junior high that he attended) for 10 years. years on the NCIS Crop-Hail Actuarial and Statistical Gary worked as a crop-hail claims adjuster for three summers for Committee, and are former employees of NCIS. the Insurance Company of North America (INA), working for Skip Steve Heverly grew up in Deerfield, Ill. (a northern sub - Goodell, who was a very good friend of Ray Fosse. Skip introduced urb of Chicago) and graduated from Northern Illinois Gary to Ray and Ray hired him to work at CHIAA in downtown University in 1977 with a B.S. degree in economics. He began Chicago. Gary worked for CHIAA/NCIS for 11 years and then went his insurance career by selling life and health insurance in to work for RCIS in 1992. Gary says, “I have made literally thou - 1978 for Washington National Insurance Company in sands of crop-hail rate and form filings in the past 28 years.” Evanston, Ill. In 1979, Steve decided underwriting might be Gary lives in Overland Park, Kan., and plans to stay there after a better fit and accepted an Assistant Underwriter position retirement. He enjoys dining out, drinking and the movies. with John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company working NCIS would like to thank Steve and Gary for their many years of in the area of group life, health and disability. Steve later service to NCIS – first as employees and then as faithful members joined CNA in Chicago, again working as an underwriter in of one of our standing committees. We wish you all the best and the area of group life, health and disability. hope that you will enjoy many, many years of retirement! Steve’s transition to crop insurance began in 1982 when he became Director of Actuarial and Statistical Services for the Crop-Hail Insurance Actuarial Association (CHIAA), now known as NCIS. From NCIS he made the move to Rain and Hail in November of 1989 creating a new department for the company. At that time the Research and Development department consisted of Steve and one other person. The R & D department has grown to seven people and under Steve’s direction they are responsible for gather - ing and analyzing data used to develop new programs, plus they file all rates and forms filings for all lines of business with the appropriate state insurance departments. When not at Rain and Hail, Steve enjoys cooking, playing games and cards, golfing, working in the yard and spending time with his family. Steve and his wife, Jody, have two chil - dren: Cam, who attends the University of Iowa; and, daugh - ter, Amy, a recent law school graduate. After retirement, Steve and Jody plan to move to a warmer climate along the coast of Oregon. Steve Heverly (left) and Gary Schmidt (right) 20 FEBRUARY 2010 TODAY crop insurance In MIn Meemmory o ry Steve Hoops Steve Hoops, 56, of Omaha, Neb., (formerly of Columbus, Nebraska) passed away unexpectedly on a business trip on December 10, 2009, in Des Moines, Iowa. Steve was born January 20, 1953, in Byron, Neb., and graduated with a BS degree from the University of Nebraska in Zoology and Science Education. He went on to earn a grad - uate degree in biology and computer science from the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Steve married Karen Fletter in 1978 and they spent their first three decades of marriage in Columbus as teachers and coaches for Columbus Public Schools. For the past two years, they have been residing in Omaha. At the time of his death, Steve was a Regional Manager for Rural Community Insurance Services which took him on business travels all over Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota. Steve was very active in the crop insurance industry including serving for many years on several National Crop Insurance Services (NCIS) Regional/State Committees and help - ing to train adjusters at various NCIS loss adjuster schools and field days. Some would say Steve was the best corn adjuster in the industry. Steve is survived by his wife, Karen; son, Brent and his wife, Sarah, and their two chil - dren, Samuel and Eve; daughter: Jill Seidel and her husband, Zac; his parents; two sisters; one brother; many nieces and nephews; and, his golden retriever, Duke. Ted Lettenmaier Ted Lettenmaier, 60, West Fargo, ND, died December 25, 2009, in his home under the care of Hospice Of The Red River Valley. Ted was born August 8, 1949, at Sanborn, ND, where he was raised and attended school. Following graduation from Sanborn High School, Ted attended Valley City State University, graduating with a degree in music education. He taught music in Esmond, ND, from 1972 to 1975. He married Sandra College in 1975 and they made their home in West Fargo, where they have lived since. Ted was a crop adjuster, beginning in 1975 and continued in the crop adjusting busi - ness throughout his career. He was currently working as a vice president of claims for American Omni Crop. Ted served for many years on the National Crop Insurance Services North Dakota Regional/State Committee, including chairman of the Committee, as well as actively participating and teaching at the summer adjuster school and field day held annu - ally at North Dakota State University. Ted enjoyed gardening, cooking and supporting the Twins and Vikings teams. He is survived by his wife, Sandi and daughters Tara and Ashley; his parents, three brothers; two sisters; one sister-in-law; and, numerous extended family. 22 FEBRUARY 2010 Continued from President’s Message crop year was going to end up. This was and much delayed harvests. As of the first due primarily to the 2008 harvest price part of January, 2010, Approved Insurance with its 18,000 employed workers, realizes declines for crops covered under the rev - Providers (AIPs) in accordance with FCIC it must do its part to help get this country enue plans of insurance. Since the harvest procedures had authorized additional time back on a much firmer financial footing. price announcements occur late in the to harvest to insured producers of as many However, we in the industry do not agree growing season, much of the related claim as 12 different crops in at least 36 different to the certain demise of the program as activity carries over into the next calendar states so their claims could be settled on outlined by the first draft of the SRA year. Of the almost 8.7 billion dollars of the basis of harvested production. A close received in December. indemnities paid out to America’s insured working relationship between RMA and NCIS realizes improvements are needed agricultural producers for the 2008 crop NCIS member companies give AIPs the to maintain a higher level of responsibility year, approximately 7.4 billion dollars was ability to work with insured producers and quality of service, not just to the paid under the revenue plans. enabling equitable servicing of claims and American farmer, but to the U.S. taxpayers It wasn’t long into 2009, however, prompt issuance of any indemnity pay - as well. To achieve this task, NCIS created before excessively dry conditions in the ments due. five work groups consisting of 85 industry south and west once again captured our Throughout a very busy claim season, specialists. These five groups divided up attention. Arizona and California were NCIS and its member companies still find the SRA and all of its appendices, to the experiencing irrigation water shortages time to continue working with RMA in people who do the job of delivering the resulting in water reductions to perennial bringing about change or better under - 1.2 million policies to agricultural produc - crops and prevented planting of row standing to a variety of program aspects ers on a daily basis. This work started over crops. Record dry conditions in parts of that arise during the year. Day-to-day MPCI a year ago. These work groups put in con - Texas continued throughout much of their policy and procedural work for NCIS siderable time, money, and energy finding growing season severely effecting pasture involves program changes or clarifications ways to simplify and consolidate reporting and rangeland and early spring planted that need to be researched and distributed requirements. These work groups row crops. to member companies for comment, dis - improved and strengthened quality control In contrast, unusually ideal conditions, cussed with RMA, and incorporated into methods and claims procedures interfacing normally a blessing for growing crops, policy or procedure. There is never a short - with USDA agencies and its computers. A soon became the concern throughout age of work to be done. Activities for 2009 means was developed to respond faster many other parts of the country. What included: with RMA when weather disasters strike. seemed a record cherry crop in the Pacific • Five Proposed Rules, Interim Rules All this was undertaken, keeping in mind Northwest turned into an overabundance or Notices, including comments to the need to save dollars and take more lia - of cherries all ripening at the same time, the Farm Bill Amendment/CAT bility within the many programs offered. depressing prices and leaving growers and Endorsement Interim Rule, FL Avocado These work groups and NCIS have pro - packers unable to market much of the fruit. Proposed Rule, Enterprise Unit Interim duced a document containing close to In the north central, central, east and south - Rule, and Apple Proposed Rule [com - 1000 pages to be delivered to RMA for its eastern portions of the U.S., cooler weath - ments not due on the Stonefruit consideration and review. By no means do er and an abundance of moisture the entire Proposed Rule till late January], plus we take the delivery of this safety net light - growing season caused prevented or • Reviewed and provided comments to ly. We believe this industry, with over 30 delayed planting of many spring seeded RMA on four draft policies/proposed years of experience, can and does provide crops and, as many are now painfully rules not published in the Federal a key ingredient to the success of U.S. agri - aware, slow maturing crops, quality issues Register: Area Risk Protection Insurance culture. We sincerely hope that the word [ARPI] Basic Provisions [GRP/GRIP “negotiate” is what this Administration combo], draft Rainfall Index Pilot and means. And we are prepared to sit down Vegetation Index Pilot policies, and a with them to do just that. NCIS realizes improvements draft Forage Seed Proposed Rule (to There is an old saying . . . “Among mor - convert from a pilot to a regulatory tals second thoughts are the wisest” . . . are needed to maintain a program); let’s hope this is true for second drafts. • Thirty-four Policy Provisions or Chairman Steve Harms and I trust the higher level of responsibility Endorsements, etc.; following will bring you up to date with and quality of service, not • Reviewed drafts of a proposed restruc - some of the other 2009 activities of NCIS. turing of the Crop Insurance Handbook just to the American farmer, intended for the 2011 crop year (in con - junction with the issuance of the MPCI but to the U.S. taxpayers 2009 began with much of the industry’s “Combo” Policy); attention still focused on how the 2008 as well. • Reviewed and provided comments to CROP INSURANCE TODAY 23 RMA on six underwriting hand - Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, tively set forth an agenda to ensure ethical books/guides and/or procedures, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, conduct by all associated with the crop including the Sugar Beet statements, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, insurance program. Planning is under way draft Written Agreement Handbook, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, for the fifth annual conference scheduled draft ITS Handbook, draft 2011 Nursery Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, for May of 2010. Underwriting Guide slipsheets, a draft Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The industry and NCIS met with the informational memorandum regarding On the Crop-Hail policy side, NCIS filed RMA to discuss the timing of the roll-out of Specialty Types of Barley and Soybeans revised policy forms in 48 states for the the Common Crop Insurance Provisions and the Document and Supplemental 2010 crop year. Special Provisions were (Combo Policy) and developed a timeline Standards Handbook; revised and filed in four states (Idaho, of training sessions that will be held in • Created six new underwriting forms Oregon, Utah and Washington); state 2009 and 2010. and updated four existing underwriting amendatory endorsements were revised The Crop Adjuster Proficiency Program forms. and filed in 12 states (Arizona, Maine, (CAPP) reached several important mile - • Reviewed and provided comments to Maryland New York, North Dakota, stones this year. In March, all AIPs signed RMA on 33 loss handbooks of which 24 Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, SRA Optional Amendment 2 implementing handbooks were subsequently issued Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia) the Crop Adjuster Proficiency Program to by RMA. to comply with state insurance statutes. address adjuster licensing inconsistencies • Continued the process of making loss The Assignment of Indemnity was again re- across states. RMA has completed its eval - adjustment procedures and forms avail - filed so the same form could continue to be uation of CAPP and has approved the pro - able to member companies electroni - used for both crop insurance programs, ficiency testing program. This evaluation cally. Crop-Hail and MPCI; Policy Jackets were reviewed IT security, compliance with • Created five new loss adjustment forms also revised and filed along with various Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of and updated seven existing forms. crop-specific endorsements. Over 80 per - 1973 (equal accessibility for persons with cent of the form filings were approved by disabilities), and examination processes CROP-HAIL the end of August. and exam question psychometrics. The 2009 was also a year of significant NCIS requested input from region - NCIS IT staff developed and implemented Crop-Hail losses. Except for 2008, the past al/state committees to various policy provi - the operational protocols, database encryp - five years, 2004-2008, NCIS membership’s sions, issues, and filings and presented tion, and redundant levels of security to Crop-Hail experience had been quite feedback to the CHPPLA and CHA&S protect the CAPP servers, website, and favorable. The cumulative ratio of losses to Committees for discussion. database. The IT staff also ensured that the premium (loss ratio) was around 59 per - NCIS also issued new or updated Crop- CAPP website was 508 compliant to RMA’s cent, or 59 cents of loss for every dollar of Hail dry beans and lentil loss procedure satisfaction. premium collected. Historically, the U.S. and/or survey sheets for the 2009 crop Over 4,000 adjusters had successfully Crop-Hail loss ratio is approximately 67 year. New or updated interpolation tables completed all requirements to receive their percent. For 2009, the preliminary U.S. loss for corn and small grains were also issued. CAPP accreditation cards by the end of the ratio is hovering around 87 percent (based Staff spent many hours reviewing proce - year. Renewal cards were issued in January on projected totals). Midwestern states dures in several other handbooks with the 2010 for all CAPP card recipients who com - with loss ratios in excess of 100 percent CHPPLA Committee for future changes. pleted their SRA mandated training prior to include: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and December 31, 2009. NCIS continues to Wisconsin. RESEARCH work with the National Association of The 2010 Final Average Loss Costs were The NCIS research department was Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and RMA filed/analyzed in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, busy overseeing 25 projects in 17 states to gain widespread acceptance of the pro - Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New and one in Canada. 2010 will prove no dif - gram by state insurance departments. Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South ferent as there are 23 projects in 14 states Throughout 2009 NCIS was actively Dakota, Tennessee and Texas. All loss cost and one in Canada. involved with universities and organiza - filings were approved and distributed to tions that are engaged in reaching small the membership by mid-September. Filings EDUCATION & and limited resource farmers, and produc - were submitted electronically using the TRAINING ers in states identified by RMA for special SERFF (System for Electronic Rate and NCIS sponsored 35 loss schools, field emphasis on risk management education. Form Filing) method. Currently 22 states days, and conferences in 2009 with over require that SERFF be used when submit - 2,570 people attending. The fourth annual PUBLIC RELATIONS ting filings to the state. The states that are Program Integrity Conference provided an The NCIS Public Relations department scheduled for new Final Average Loss excellent opportunity to discuss the issues was very active as NCIS continued the Costs for the 2011 crop season include: surrounding program integrity and proac - “Crop Insurance Keeps America Growing” 24 FEBRUARY 2010 campaign created under the direction of One major issue was brought to a reso - ices to 10,071 agents who are affiliated the NCIS Board of Directors and Public lution in principle. The CAT/Winstar litiga - with NCIS members. Over the year, NCIS Relations Committee in 2008. tion, which began in early 2003, was tried processed more than 458,000 document In the spring of 2009, NCIS was success - before the Civilian Board of Contract and map pages to provide this service. By ful in reaching out to mainstream and agri - Appeals in late spring. Then, post-hearing year end, only 86 of these 10,071 agents cultural media in response to delayed briefing was suspended in order for the still received their documents on paper; the planting in many Midwestern states. Many parties to engage in settlement negotia - remaining receive actuarials on CD-Rom. reporters were interested in how the late tions. With the aid of a mediator appointed In addition, 2,703 agents now access their planting claims would be paid and how the by the Presiding Judge, the parties reached actuarial documents online, through the delayed start would affect the crops matu - an agreement in principle on December 2 NCIS web site either as a supplement to ration by normal harvest time. As it hap - for a complete resolution of all “Winstar” their paper or electronic versions, or in pened, many producers who were affected claims. The claims involve alleged breach - place of them. by the delayed planting were subsequently es of the 1998 Standard Reinsurance The NCIS web site remained quite affected by the early freeze and snow in Agreement through implementation of leg - active in 2009 and continues to be a pri - some parts of the Midwest. The delayed islative changes made by Congress in 1998 mary means by which NCIS delivers infor - harvest and the looming December 10th and in 2000. The settlement amount is mation to its members. Here are some “end of the insurance period” found the $30,000,000 (with interest to run at the rate highlights: NCIS phone ringing with questions from established under the Contract Dispute Act In 2009, reporters. A press release was distributed in if not paid on or before February 1). There • More than 3,200 individuals used logon late November with tips for farmers. are two conditions to meet for the settle - IDs and passwords that grant them NCIS also announced the release of the ment to be closed. One is approval by the access to NCIS products through our 2009 Grant Thornton report on the Federal Secretary of Agriculture. The other condi - web site. Crop Insurance Program Profitability and tion is approval by the Liquidation Court • Our home page was viewed 84,030 Effectiveness Analysis to congress and for American Growers Insurance Company. times. members of the media. This release was The other major matter involving legal • Agents accessed actuarial documents met with great interest by several key work in calendar year 2009 was preparing online 22,078 times. reporters and led to face-to-face meetings for renegotiation of the Standard • NCIS members made 272 online pur - with NCIS staff and these individuals. Reinsurance Agreement. The first step in chases. Along with the above activities, NCIS this process was to secure the advice of • 1,471 people registered for meetings continued its efforts in reaching out to pro - antitrust counsel on the ability of NCIS and online. ducers through its year-round publicity its members to meet together in order to campaigns to inform them about upcoming make proposals to RMA and to respond to SPECIAL PROJECTS sales closing deadlines, changes to the pro - its proposals. Thereafter, considerable Grant Thornton LLP was engaged again gram, or other significant crop insurance effort was devoted to other legal issues in 2009 by NCIS and its member compa - program announcements. Over 300 press raised in the course of the early stages of nies to provide an update on the Federal releases, many individualized for specific the negotiations and in assisting the work - Crop Insurance Program Profitability and states, were distributed to regional and ing groups with legal issues that they Effectiveness Analysis. This study bench - local newspapers. Many of these were also encountered. It is an understatement to say marked the MPCI industry against the placed in agricultural magazines and web - that this work will continue on an intensive Property and Casualty insurance industry sites. Several radio spots were recorded and basis into calendar year 2010. for the period 1992-2008. (The full report distributed through the National Farm Calendar year 2009 saw some old cases can be found on the NCIS website at Broadcasting website service for pick-up by wrapped up. The very last phase of the www.ag-risk.org .) A summary of the local and regional farm broadcasters. Minnesota sugar beet litigation was con - 2009 update is published in the February Over 80,000 copies of the 2009 Guide cluded in the spring, and the last of the issue of the NCIS Crop Insurance TODAY to Crop Insurance were distributed to Texas GRIP corn cases from the 2006 crop magazine. farmers via NCIS member companies, year was concluded in the autumn. In addition to distribution among the agents, extension offices, and state agricul - NCIS membership, the 2009 update was ture departments, and the readership of ADMINISTRATIVE sent to members of the House and Crop Insurance TODAY magazine contin - Through effective negotiation and plan - Senate Agriculture Committees, the mem - ued to grow. ning, the NCIS meeting planning staff real - bers of the House Committee on ized a savings of approximately $273,231 in Oversight and Government Reform, and LEGAL lower room rates, food cost and meeting select members of the House and Senate The legal front was active in calendar room fees in 2009. Appropriations Committee, as well as year 2009. NCIS provided actuarial document serv - members of the media. CROP INSURANCE TODAY 25 STATE RANKINGS Premiums for Crop-Hail STATE 2009 PREMIUMS* 2008 PREMIUMS* % CHANGE Nebraska 90,416 95,796 -5.62 North Dakota 74,102 66,155 12.01 Iowa 68,817 69,448 -0.91 Minnesota 55,885 55,071 1.48 Illinois 54,667 57,039 -4.16 Kansas 52,860 65,697 -19.54 Texas 41,762 49,937 -16.37 South Dakota 37,405 38,548 -2.96 Montana 16,430 24,605 -33.22 Indiana 13,740 14,583 -5.78 Idaho 12,787 14,164 -9.72 Missouri 12,157 13,550 -10.27 Wisconsin 11,089 12,174 -8.91 Colorado 10,418 9,402 10.80 North Carolina 10,392 9,958 4.36 Washington 9,626 11,874 -18.93 Oklahoma 7,564 14,408 -47.50 Arkansas 7,545 10,411 -27.52 Ohio 6,685 7,024 -4.83 Michigan 5,342 5,528 -3.36 Kentucky 4,137 3,853 7.35 Oregon 2,418 3,302 -26.76 Arizona 2,219 2,114 5.00 Tennessee 1,755 1,936 -9.35 Virginia 1,747 1,574 10.95 Wyoming 1,701 1,742 -2.35 New Mexico 1,550 1,970 -21.30 California 1,301 2,042 -36.30 Georgia 1,174 1,258 -6.66 Mississippi 463 997 -53.58 Alabama 434 476 -8.83 South Carolina 419 404 3.75 Florida 275 226 21.93 Louisiana 127 405 -68.62 New York 124 134 -7.29 Utah 104 53 94.67 Pennsylvania 71 66 7.63 New Jersey 42 3 1,347.61 Nevada 40 32 27.94 Maryland 34 47 -27.90 Delaware 23 35 -32.93 New Hampshire 15 0 0.00 Massachusetts 2 3 -39.94 Connecticut 2 0 0.00 West Virginia ** 1 -66.64 Maine 000.00 Rhode Island 000.00 Vermont 000.00 Totals 619,868 668,042 -7.21 *Rounded to Thousands Data Source: NCIS 6-B Adjusted Verified Totals as of 12/28/2009. 26 FEBRUARY 2010 © National Crop Insurance Services 12/2009. STATE RANKINGS Premiums for MPCI STATE 2009 PREMIUMS* 2008 PREMIUMS* % CHANGE Iowa 743,198 914,302 -18.71 Kansas 730,179 664,251 9.93 Illinois 709,256 866,346 -18.13 North Dakota 707,066 1,064,939 -33.61 Texas 661,482 603,459 9.62 Minnesota 626,509 844,910 -25.85 Nebraska 580,165 678,633 -14.51 South Dakota 564,962 685,736 -17.61 Indiana 382,804 449,123 -14.77 Missouri 272,580 301,341 -9.54 Ohio 272,118 297,058 -8.40 California 242,576 197,869 22.59 Wisconsin 211,030 235,089 -10.23 Colorado 208,775 183,875 13.54 Montana 203,069 191,568 6.00 Oklahoma 191,014 130,267 46.63 North Carolina 160,698 160,303 0.25 Michigan 155,279 165,805 -6.35 Washington 130,564 71,397 82.87 Florida 110,605 122,396 -9.63 Georgia 108,829 120,829 -9.93 Kentucky 103,330 106,803 -3.25 Arkansas 100,717 96,465 4.41 Mississippi 98,044 81,944 19.65 Idaho 90,478 60,060 50.64 Tennessee 84,253 84,784 -0.63 Louisiana 75,755 63,665 18.99 South Carolina 53,646 54,157 -0.94 Alabama 51,847 56,460 -8.17 Pennsylvania 49,393 57,389 -13.93 Virginia 49,378 56,713 -12.93 Oregon 48,895 29,416 66.22 Maryland 31,575 36,878 -14.38 New York 27,317 26,820 1.85 New Mexico 21,316 16,602 28.40 Wyoming 17,812 18,459 -3.50 Delaware 12,420 13,546 -8.32 Arizona 11,519 9,527 20.91 Maine 7,896 6,560 20.37 New Jersey 6,392 6,044 5.75 Connecticut 4,893 4,569 7.10 Utah 4,787 3,119 53.48 Massachusetts 3,674 3,249 13.10 Nevada 2,702 852 217.24 West Virginia 2,288 2,558 -10.55 Vermont 1,674 1,586 5.53 Hawaii 1,456 1,933 -24.68 New Hampshire 300 414 -27.35 Rhode Island 88 94 -5.91 Alaska 52 43 21.64 Totals 8,936,658 9,850,206 -9.27 *Rounded to Thousands Data Source: RMA Summary of Business as of 12/21/2009. Prepared by © National Crop Insurance Services 12/2009. CROP INSURANCE TODAY 27 th e n u mber doe Fo s r not exampl contai e, n the re a sen d code as t h, s t he i 9 t 0-16 i s numbe i nsur A m ea n able r umb ns of that counti i e n r e contai v spe er e y s cif to i c ni n i Th oun -d c ng tha crop at e ty e a numbe t stat inf dash in is or e th ins mati the e rs i nd urab Ch s in tat i crop on. cate an the e. l e ges A s u m i s nder t numbe hat atr 4 are i nsur 2 4 ix = 1 the constantly the I = re P abl of -I r PR 4 fe nco 0 crop includi e APH in r V = - to me 3 u sur P TDO 0 nde e 2 can sp = i Pr ance, s 5 pl TGP ng 1 - ecific occur ote = not r Tr an 4 Rev 1 t R ee = he 3 ctio A (P -T 1 of enue V = i - B ob and 2 nsur APRICOTS AVOCADO Re 201 ADJUSTED GROSS ) 1 63 I ri pla a ins - n R 0 V ALFALFA = sed REVENUE* ins i a ng ven ALMONDS APICULTURE APPLES I- ndi ege 28 cco = = G SEED Rai T uran n AGR AGR-Lite Fresh Processing Avocado Trees 61 STATE abl the uran PN RP A h 0 ue D i c tatio nfa o n G e ( ol at = G - FE BRUARY f T e R Alabama 61 13 Gr CR A lar the ce uarant foll - l insu es A - 55 numb l P ss c Adj i n ou In n G ea n Alaska 61 e 51 ura Am pla In = de R-L a owi p OP ev u i crop de rance Arizona 61 14 90-2 n = ut s YD ste nce p x Ri eed ount 50 -A ns e er ilo FD x six sk 90-1 ng Arkansas ry d O dj 10 = 47 by I - t - Produ Gro Pl u ins te of Yi F N of California (P)63-8 (P)90-2 90-16 13 90-25 90-13 90-13 (P)90-6 D count st p prog indi an i e = xed en O ages e 46 the Insur ld uran SURA ss Colorado 61 13-48, 14-15 90-3 co d -Do A cti Ba RH- ca = count R Gro Do unti 45 Connecticut (P)63 61 90 ra e p y l on) an A se l ven ted ce a con l m. l Ac 96 RC an = lar ss r Delaware (P)63 61 in ce d 44 es Am II tu u p Do R -Av ies = NCE P the Florida (P)63-6 61 13 (P)90-1 (P)40-1 by e ta nu = 92 eve r 43 al -I whe o ogr IAP l i CRC nd la o u n Georgia 61 13 90-7 Re mber = i th = c n n 90 r n st a exe H t ue a A am ve Am A e Hawaii 61 d at re o - -Cr the P = Ind o Q 86 li nu f n - HA e. TSCHAR d IN ou st A In (P)63-3 61 (P)90-2 90-5 90-4 D Idaho 14 R Lit 84 o umbe th and as e In e eve = P O p su sta The n R xe o e His H c Illinois 61 90-6 ey = t L G - R 82 ran ide o f APH- - -A q d of n ev Ac - te. m GS Gr a to ue Indiana 90-10 y APH = are c r e ll e 81 In ou nti nu tu ry e u SUR o - n LGM b Pro If G Co sura ac Iowa Alt federally wer u al = efore fie mber Y e ul 73 sh ins ve Pro C er Kansas 61 13 te LR Cov tu r n d - Y 70 na ra ould Sp c Live ce = P i Kentucky ura d tio Loc el by e ge - ti era GRIP u a L = th d foll Do v c n n Louisiana ive sto tion ely ble. TQ Certi th e g co s ll a sto Maine e c owi - e (P)63 61 90-11 ubs da G R -T k r His ntact at R ati c ro o ABLE Gro f Pl (P)63-21 61-23 90-8 sh. Maryland ic k ba isk ed ng idize u at to e Ri p cc Massachusetts (P)63 61 90-12 s as io r sk s R y Mana th o your n on Mar e Michigan (P)63-9 90-24 isk Pr d (Q u e n o In Minnesota 61 13 90-2 ins gin dash tec ote ot c gem c s o Mississippi urab a) r tio m op & th e Missouri 13-114 90-9 n ent r Pr ep is le i Montana 61 (P)90-1 13-56 nsur ot - infomr ati Pl Age c Nebraska 14 e rop c CROPS t ance Nevada 61 (P)90-2 ion ncy ans New Hampshire (P)63 61 90 s, w (RM ag on New Jersey (P)63 61-20 90-12 hat New Mexico 61 14 90-4 ent A). is New York (P)63-16 61-52 13 90-25 sta fo c tes ur North Carolina 61 13 90-18 r re t he North Dakota 13 the nt m Ohio 90-13 y as ost Oklahoma 13 ar of Oregon (P)63-11 61 (P)90-1 14 90-16 90-5 e up- ins Pennsylvania (P)63-14 61-66 13 90-45 Janu urab Rhode Island (P)63 61 90-4 ary South Carolina 61 13 90-5 le 1, South Dakota 14 i n, Tennessee 61 90-2 2 un Texas 13 010. der Utah 61 14 90-2 Vermont (P)63 61 90-8 what Virginia (P)63-40 61 13-98 90-27 Washington (P)63-11 61 (P)90-2 90-14 90-7 pl West Virginia 61 90-14 an(s Wisconsin 61 90-14 ) Wyoming 61 (P)90-2 14 *AGR is a plan of insurance and not a crop. Under AGR many crops (including livestock) are insurable that are not insurable under any other plan of insurance. CITRUS BANANA BEANS CITRUS TREE GRAPEFRUIT CARAMBOLA BARLEY BLUBE ERRIES BUCKWHEACT ABBAGE CANOLA CHERRIES CHILE CITRUS All Other FRESH All Other TREES PEPPERS I-VIII NECTARINES STATE Banana Tree ProDceryssing Citrus Trees Tree I-V Grapefruit Grapefruit Alabama 90-1 90-2 Alaska 90-4 90-1 Arizona 90-5 90-2 (P)51-1 90-3 Arkansas California 90-33 90-18 90-4 (P)47-9 90-8 90-8 Colorado 25-25,90-35 90-24 Connecticut Delaware 90 90-2 Florida 90-5 90-6 (P)40-1 50-29 (P)40-28 Georgia 90-4 90-12 90-5 90-14 Hawaii (P)90 (P)40 Idaho 25-43,(P)42-43,90-43 90-12 90-2 25-26,90-26 (P)47-5 90-4 Illinois 90-1 90-4 90-3 Indiana 90-2 90-2 Iowa 90-11 90-4 Kansas 90-75 90-12 Kentucky 90-15 Louisiana Maine 90 90-8 Maryland 90-18 90-10 Massachusetts Michigan 90-39 90-31 90-10 90-5 90-2 (P)47-2 Minnesota 25-74,(P)42-74,90-74 90-41 90-15 90-8 25-24,90-24 Mississippi 90-8 Missouri 90-17 Montana 25-55,(P)42-55,90-55 90-11 25-18,90-18 (P)47-1 Nebraska 90-26 90-25 Nevada 90-12 New Hampshire New Jersey 90-7 90-3 90-4 New Mexico 90-4 90-4 90-1 (P)51-2 New York 90-15 90-13 90-18 90-3 North Carolina 90-57 90-1 90-6 90-1 North Dakota 25,(P)42,90 90-36 90-12 25,90 Ohio 90-2 90-2 Oklahoma 90-24 90-1 Oregon 25-30,(P)42-30,90-30 90-2 90-9 90-7 90-3 25-7,90-7 (P)47-7 90-5 Pennsylvania 90-54 90-15 90-1 CRO P Rhode Island South Carolina 90-6 90-1 I 25,(P)42-28,90 90-13 NS URA NCE South Dakota Tennessee 90-8 90-4 Texas 90-43 90-18 90-5 90-1 50-3CEO 90-3 Utah 90-25 90-1 (P)47-1 TODAY Vermont 90-1 Virginia 90-62 90-2 90-1 Washington 25-38,(P)42-38,90-38 90-6 90-7 90-6 90-3 25-11,909-01-12 (P)47-10 90-7 29 West Virginia 90-1 Wisconsin 90-64 90-3 90-42 90-1 Wyoming 90-18 90-7 CITRUS(continued from previous page) GRAPEFRUIT (cont.) LEMON ORANGES TANGELOS COFFEE CORN Rio Red, LIME MANGO Early, Star Ruby TREES MANDARINS TREES Midseason Sweet & CLAMS 30 STATE & Ruby Red Trees Trees Lemons & Late Navel Valencia Trees Minneola Orlando Coffee Tree Corn FE BRUARY Alabama 44-64,90-64 Alaska Arizona 90-3 90-3 90-3 90-3 90-3 90-3 44-4,90-4 Arkansas 25-49,44-49,90-49 10 California 90-12 90-8 (P)47-4,90-9 90-10 90-7 90-2 44-19,90-19 Colorado 25-26,44-26,90-26 Connecticut 44,90 Delaware 44,90 Florida (P)40-28 (P)40-4 (P)40-3 (P)40-1 (P)40-28 (P)43-4 44-28,90-28 Georgia 44-140,90-140 Hawaii (P)90 (P)40 Idaho 44-19,90-19 Illinois 12-95,25,(P)42,44,73-95,90 Indiana 12-84,25,(P)42,44,73-84,90 Iowa 12,25,(P)42-6,44,73,90 Kansas 25,44,90 Kentucky 25-107,44-107,90-107 Louisiana 25-38,44-38,90-38 Maine 44,90 Maryland 44-23,(P)45-23,90-23 Massachusetts (P)43-5 44-12,90-12 Michigan 12-38,25-76,44-76,73-38,90-76 Minnesota 12-60,25-86,44-86,73-60,90-86 Mississippi 44-80,90-80 Missouri 12-62,25-102,44-102,73-62,90-102 Montana 44-24,90-24 Nebraska 12-41,25-91,44-91,73-41,90-91 Nevada New Hampshire 44,90 New Jersey 44-16,90-16 New Mexico 44-20,90-20 New York 44-52,(P)45-52,90-52 North Carolina 25,44,(P)45,90 North Dakota 25,44,90 Ohio 12-67,25,44,73-67,90 Oklahoma 25-61,44-61,90-61 Oregon 44-3,90-18 Pennsylvania 44-66,(P)45-66,90-66 Rhode Island 44,90 South Carolina (P)43-2 44,90 South Dakota 12-27,25,44,73-27,90 Tennessee 25-89,44-89,90-89 Texas 90-3 90-3 44-141,90-141 Utah 44-18,90-18 Vermont 44,90 Virginia (P)43-2 25-97,44-97,90-97 Washington 44-20,90-27 West Virginia 44,90 Wisconsin 12-59,44,73-59,90 Wyoming 44-11,90-11 E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 A L r e d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e K 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e C F O T S E V I L d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 F E L T T A y C r i 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 D e l t 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a C s e e 9 l - p b 0 a a r 9 T S G E P A R s 3 2 5 8 1 G e 1 2 1 1 4 3 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 3 ------p - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 r 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 G g e 6 6 6 0 6 7 6 n 8 8 8 2 1 1 4 9 g i 8 6 1 1 5 1 8 ------0 0 0 0 a ------d r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 e 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 F S E G A 6 6 n R 8 6 2 0 - - - o O i e 9 6 0 6 7 2 5 6 0 0 0 t , F 8 2 9 5 2 1 2 6 g c 1 1 5 1 2 2 8 9 9 9 ------2 0 0 0 0 a , , , ------u r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 9 9 9 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - d o 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 - 4 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 o F - - 2 r 1 2 2 1 P 1 1 7 X 4 3 2 - - 0 0 A - 0 0 9 9 L 0 9 9 F 9 S 4 - G 0 I F 9 S E I R 5 R 6 2 2 2 3 1 - - - - - E - 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 9 9 9 9 9 N 9 A R C g n e 6 o l 3 6 7 L 1 - - - p - 0 0 0 a a 0 t r 9 9 9 t 9 S x E 0 0 1 5 1 3 - 3 2 7 - - 0 6 8 5 1 0 0 9 N - , 6 5 2 7 3 9 9 1 8 , , - - - 0 - O 2 6 T 1 3 4 5 1 0 0 0 9 0 - - 9 , - - - - T 9 9 9 9 0 - 3 5 , , , 0 , 2 2 7 5 0 0 3 3 9 0 O 7 1 5 6 5 3 4 4 1 2 2 , 9 9 7 7 , , , , , 9 ------C 3 , n 0 1 8 1 5 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 9 o 0 1 3 3 2 9 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 - - t , , , , , , , , , , 1 - - - - t - 4 4 5 6 8 5 3 7 2 2 7 5 4 4 4 4 o 4 4 4 - 1 6 5 2 7 4 1 2 2 , , 4 4 4 4 4 C , , , , - - - - 4 - - - - , 1 4 9 1 8 1 5 4 4 4 4 - 4 4 4 4 4 - - 4 , - 1 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 5 , , , 4 - - - - 2 4 4 2 - 4 5 6 5 , ) 5 5 5 5 ) - - - 2 0 2 2 2 2 P P , , 2 2 2 1 ( ( 3 , 4 5 1 1 1 - - - 2 2 2 2 1 - 1 1 1 2 1 t 1 2 8 0 2 3 2 1 1 e 5 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 - 0 e ------0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 S ) . t n o c d ( 0 5 9 1 1 6 7 r d 9 5 1 4 1 i 1 3 4 1 9 7 6 - - - - - e ------N b 5 5 5 5 5 e 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 y R 5 5 5 5 5 S 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 H O C t 1 6 4 6 1 h e 9 2 1 6 3 s k 1 1 5 6 1 - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - r e 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 a r 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 F 5 5 5 5 5 M i i i t t s s s s s i y y a a a a a a k a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a E n h e n n n e e e o o o o d g d r i i i i i i t i i p t r t t r r n u a a a a k k k c e a a n n n n n n T n e d d o o h i n n n t u d s o w i i n i n n n i m m s s g i h c i a t s x s p o o o o s c o t s l i l i a a a i A a o a g a a r h i a e r r g o n w n x i a i r a o a s n n i l l o s t a a k k Y t e u i T r z g s s I U v s o o g g s O w l m s d o a l e o o v r s m o i e e t y a a d e T c h b i r r h a a e n r r I l s l l S s I f r o n e u a r p r i i M r i I c o i e i J l A i c k b l n n a n H a a e a u n y w K o l F i s D D l s h I l M e a r y V V A O N e h i s o e e e n n m n G e a o s C C c M k i V i s A w M A n d M t a h h n L C e K M a D N W C w N a W t t e s h h O n T s o M o M H r e t t u e s e h r N W C o u a o N P R o w W o S N e M S N N CROCRPOINPSIUNRSAUNRCANECTEOTDOAY DAY 31 31 PAPAYA PASTURE PEACHES PEAS MACADAMIA 32 MILLET MINT MUSTARD NUORASTES RY ONIONS OSYTERS RANGELAND Fresh Processing Processing PEANUTS PEARS PECANS PEPPERS PLUMS NUTS/TREES STATE Papaya Tree FORAGE Freestone Peaches Cling Freestone Dry Green FE BRUARY Alabama 50 90-21 (P)13 90-9 90-32 41-24 Alaska 50-5 90-1 Arizona 50-7 41-6 Arkansas 50 90-23 90-15 90-2 10 California 90-4 50-44 90-19 90-2 90-8 90-10 90-8 90-9 90-10 Colorado 90-15 50 90-15 90-10 (P)13-22,(P)14-15 90-3 Connecticut 50 90-2 Delaware 50 90 Florida 50 90-11 90-1 90-24 41-1 50-13 Georgia 50 90-81 90-24 90-26 90-77 41-83 Hawaii 50-3,90-3 50 (P)90 (P)40 Idaho 90-5 90-13 50 90-41 90-4 (P)14-15 90-4 90-18 90-18 Illinois 50-45 90-35 90-4 90-10 Indiana 90-2 50-16 90-9 Iowa 50 90 90-4 Kansas 90-10 50 90-92 90-2 (P)13 Kentucky 50 90-2 Louisiana 50 90-21 12-9 90-5 90-1 Maine 50 90 90-1 Maryland 50 90-6 90-7 90-7 Massachusetts 50 90-4 Michigan 50-31 90-72 90-19 90-9 90-1 Minnesota 50 90-86 90-1 90-34 Mississippi 50 90-21 90-12 90-19 41-2 Missouri 50 90-27 (P)13-114 90-2 Montana 90-6 50-56 90-52 (P)13-56 90-27 Nebraska 90-13 50 90-82 (P)14 Nevada 50-5 90-2 90-3 New Hampshire 50 90-1 New Jersey 50 90-4 90-8 New Mexico 50 90-3 90-3 41-6 New York 50 90-46 90-12 (P)13-15 90-6 90-17 North Carolina 50 90-82 (P)13 90-22 90-28 North Dakota 90-2 90-18 50 90 (P)13-24 90 Ohio 50-40 90-44 Oklahoma 50 90-51 (P)13-45 90-8 90-38 41-6 Oregon 90-10 90-1 50 90-25 90-6 (P)14-9 90-5 90-7 90-3 90-3 Pennsylvania 50 90-66 (P)13-26 90-30 90-1 90-10 Rhode Island 50 90-1 South Carolina 50 90-37 (P)13-34 90-19 90-27 South Dakota 90-26 50 90 (P)14-20 90-27 Tennessee 50 90-6 90-10 Texas 50 90-114 90-14 (P)13-126 90-44 90-85 41-16 Utah 50-10 90-14 90-3 90-1 Vermont 50 90-1 Virginia 50-102 90-13 (P)13-98 90-20 90-10 Washington 90-6 90-7 50 90-24 90-6 90-7 90-12 90-11 90-16 West Virginia 50 90-27 90-6 Wisconsin 90-4 50 90 90-42 Wyoming 90-2 50 90-17 (P)14 RICE SORGHUM Cultivated Hybrid STATE POPCORN POTATOES PRUNES PUMPKINS RAISINS Wild Rice RSiAceFFLOWER RYE Grain Sorghum Seed Silage SOYBEANS Alabama 90-1 90-4 44-37,90-37 44-58,90-58 Alaska 90-3 Arizona 90-2 90-2 Arkansas 25-44,44-44,90-44 44-51,90-51 25-56,(P)42-42,44-56,90-56 California 90-5 90-14 50-7 90-5 44-13,90-13 90-14 44-5,90-5 Colorado 90-5 90-10 44-18,90-18 (P)90-2 25-7,44-7,90-7 Connecticut 90-1 Delaware 90-2 44-2,90-2 44,90 Florida 90-15 44-3,90-3 44-5,90-5 44-20,90-20 Georgia 44-82,90-82 44-124,90-124 Hawaii Idaho 90-26 90-10 Illinois 90-24 90-11 44-47,90-47 12-97,25,(P)42,44,73-97,90 Indiana 90-52 90-1 44-11,90-11 12-85,25,(P)42,44,73-85,90 Iowa 90-39 90-3 44-21,90-21 12,25,(P)42-6,44,73,90 Kansas 90-9 90-4 12-30,44,73-30,90 55-2 (P)90-37 25,44,90 Kentucky 90-6 44-24,90-24 25-81,44-81,90-81 Louisiana 25-30,44-30,90-30 44-34,90-34 25-48,44-48,90-48 Maine 90-5 Maryland 90-3 44-13,90-13 44-22,(P)45-22,90-22 Massachusetts 90-2 Michigan 90-5 90-33 12-36,25-58,44-58,73-36,90-58 Minnesota 90-2 90-28 90-6 12-56,25-84,44-84,73-56,90-84 Mississippi 44-17,90-17 44-49,90-49 44-81,90-81 Missouri 90-17 90-2 44-7,90-7 44-92,90-92 12-74,25-92,44-92,73-74,90-92 Montana 90-8 90-23 Nebraska 90-61 90-12 90-3 44-75,90-75 12-41,25-79,44-79,73-41,90-79 Nevada 90-1 New Hampshire New Jersey 90-6 44-2,90-2 44-14,90-14 New Mexico 90-5 44-10,90-10 55-2 New York 90-15 90-17 44-24,90-24 North Carolina 90-10 44-81,90-81 25-89,44-89,(P)45-89,90-89 North Dakota 90-25 90-21 90-21 44-1,90-1 25-37,44-37,90-37 Ohio 90-25 90-1 44-1,90-1 12-59,25-85,44-85,73-59,90-85 Oklahoma 90-3 44-1,90-1 90-6 44-71,90-71 25-63,44-63,90-63 Oregon 90-14 Pennsylvania 90-13 44-57,90-57 44-51,90-51 CRO P Rhode Island 90-2 South Carolina 90-3 44-22,90-22 44,90 I South Dakota 90-5 90-5 90-13 90-10 44-59,90-59 12-20,25-48,44-48,73-20,90-48 NS URA NCE Tennessee 44-1,90-1 44-35,90-35 25-76,44-76,90-76 Texas 90-20 44-23,90-23 1920--12 8,(P)42-201,44-202,73-18,9505-2-109 2 44-82,90-82 Utah 90-5 TODAY Vermont Virginia 90-2 44-79,90-79 25-86,44-86,90-86 Washington 90-13 33 West Virginia 44-10,90-10 Wisconsin 90-17 44-1,90-1 12-45,44-63,73-45,90-63 Wyoming 90-2 TOBACCO TOMATOES SUGAR Cigar Cigar Cigar Dark Air & Flue Fresh 34 STATE BEETS SUGARCANE SUNFLOWERS Burley Binder Filler Wrapper Fire Cured Cured Maryland Market Tomatoes WALNUTS WHEAT FE BRUARY Alabama 90-2 90-2 44-59,90-59 Alaska 90-2 Arizona 44-11,90-11 Arkansas 90-5 12-18,25-53,44-53,73-18,90-53 10 California 90-17 90-7 90-17 90-26 44-35,90-35 Colorado 90-10 25-17,90-17 12-15,25-40,44-40,73-15,90-40 Connecticut 90-2 90-2 Delaware 90-2 44,90 Florida 90-4 90-16 50-16,90-4 44-20,90-20 Georgia 90-48 90-5 44-128,90-128 Hawaii Idaho 90-16 25-42,(P)42-4,44-42,90-42 Illinois 12-33,44,73-33,90 Indiana 90-21 90-11 12-5,25-91,44-91,73-5,90-91 Iowa 25-51,44-51,90-51 Kansas 25-70,90-70 12-88,25,(P)42-12,44,73-88,90 Kentucky 90-119 90-27 12-5,25-76,44-76,73-5,90-76 Louisiana 12-21,90-24 44-41,90-41 Maine 90 Maryland 90-5 90-4 90-7 12-4,44-23,73-4,90-23 Massachusetts 90-3 90-3 Michigan 90-18 90-2 12-16,25-67,44-67,73-16,90-67 Minnesota 90-33 25-34,90-34 12-21,25-83,(P)42-83,44-83,73-21,90-83 Mississippi 12-4,44-77,73-4,90-77 Missouri 90-5 12-37,25-96,44-96,73-37,90-96 Montana 90-12 25-13,90-13 12-28,25-54,(P)42-54,44-54,73-28,90-54 Nebraska 90-14 25-30,90-30 12-31,25-83,44-83,73-31,90-83 Nevada 44-12,90-12 New Hampshire New Jersey 90-5 90-10 New Mexico 44-15,90-15 New York 90-6 44-27,90-27 North Carolina 90-25 90-63 12-8,44-82,73-8,90-82 North Dakota 90-9 25,90 12-52,25,(P)42,44,73-52,90 Ohio 90-5 90-11 90-11 12-29,25-76,44-76,73-29,90-76 Oklahoma 90-2 12-24,25,44,73-24,90 Oregon 90-2 (P)42-30,44-30,90-30 Pennsylvania 90-3 90-1 90-4 90-16 44-57,90-57 Rhode Island South Carolina 90-19 90-3 44-45,90-45 South Dakota 25-52,90-52 12-34,25,(P)42,44,73-34,90 Tennessee 90-73 90-11 90-7 12-4,25-68,44-68,73-4,90-68 Texas 90-3 25-23,90-26 12-50,44-206,73-50,90-206 Utah 44-23,90-23 Vermont 90-2 Virginia 90-23 90-19 90-25 90-2 90-1 44-78,90-78 Washington 90-5 (P)42-29,44-29,90-29 West Virginia 90-7 90-21 Wisconsin 90-11 44-54,90-54 Wyoming 90-7 25-2,90-2 44-16,90-16 Y A D O T NCI SSpotlight By Laurie Langstraat, NCIS She is likely the first person you talk to you when you call NCIS. “The Voice of NCIS” is Jo Anne Baker, an employee of Pitney Bowes Management Services (PBMS), but one of the most important peo - ple within the walls of NCIS. NCIS out - sources its mail, copy and receptionist serv - ices to PBMS. There are four additional members of the PBMS team who fill in very nicely when Jo Anne is away, and we prom - ise to introduce you to them in a subsequent issue of the magazine. Jo Anne started working for PBMS in 1998, and came to NCIS in October of 2004. “The most important, as well as enjoy - able part of my job here at NCIS, is greeting callers—by phone,” says Jo Anne. “I know many by name or voice; and when mem - bers visit NCIS for meetings, it’s always fun Jo Anne Baker, The Voice of NCIS putting a face with that name or voice.” Jo Anne has quite a variety of daily duties Today TM is completed in a timely manner. work with them, to try and anticipate their to help keep the office running smoothly, Another big undertaking this year was a needs, and make their jobs just a little bit from jobs as simple as distributing the morn - directory update of the national daily news - easier. Getting to know them personally is ing newspapers to ordering meeting and paper contacts used in the distribution of an added bonus!” break room supplies. But most of her day press releases. “NCIS is very fortunate to have Jo is spent directing incoming calls, handling “The book has over 1,000 pages of con - Anne as the voice of our organization,” conference calls, sending faxes and occa - tact information for people we need to said Bob Parkerson, President. “She is a sionally…”running down one of the execu - reach with information about our industry,” true professional.” tives to make an urgent connection.” said Laurie Langstraat, NCIS. “Without Jo Jo Anne grew up, married and raised 2 “When visitors come for meetings here Anne’s help, it’s a project that probably sons in Raytown, MO, a Kansas City sub - in Overland Park, it’s time to put on my would have been on the back burner for a urb. She worked part-time for the Raytown hostess hat and help in any way I can to long time.” School District until her youngest son left for ensure that they feel welcome and their Jo Anne helps her team in the mail cen - college. Currently she lives in needs are met.” ter when they need another pair of hands, Independence, MO with her husband, In between calls and other daily respon - and is responsible for the little jobs NCIS Charles. They love road trips and plan at sibilities there are always special projects sometimes take for granted, including least two “adventures” every year—one where Jo Anne is always willing to assist. adding a touch of holiday spirit to the office being to Colorado, one of their favorite des - Thousands of actuarial and nursery CDs are throughout the year, starting a fresh pot of tinations. Their sons and their families live processed and mailed annually, and she coffee in the morning, and giving the close, so family time is a big part of her life. and some of her PBMS team members work employees all a pleasant “good morning” She has lots of hobbies, but mostly enjoys on distributing these and other special mail - greeting when they arrive. spending her free time with her 5-year-old ings. Jo Anne is also very helpful in ensur - “We have a great group of people work - grandson, Nolan, and her 93-year-old moth - ing the distribution of Crop Insurance ing here at NCIS and it’s my pleasure to er-in-law. CROP INSURANCE TODAY 35 INDUSTRY NCIS AWARDS Under the direction of its Board of The newest award established is the The two winners will be presented with Directors, National Crop Insurance Industry Leadership Award. This award, their awards at the crop insurance industry Services has developed two national targeted primarily to members of the NCIS annual convention held in February of awards to be given to individuals who regional/state crop insurance committees, each year. achieve excellence in the criteria set out by was created to formally recognize individ - All nominations must be submitted in the awards. uals who are directly involved in the crop writing to NCIS by October 15, 2010, for The first award is the Outstanding insurance industry and who consistently awards to be given at the 2011 Annual Service Award. This award, primarily for serve the industry by providing outstanding Convention. For nomination information agents, has actually been in existence since leadership. Company employees at both and forms to be submitted, please go to 2001 and has been awarded to several the field and management level are eligible the NCIS website at www.ag-risk.org to excellent individuals. The purpose of this to be nominated. download. If you have any questions award is to promote exceptional service The criteria for both awards are: regarding the criteria or whom is eligible industry-wide, and encourage outstanding 1. Strong personal and business ethics. for either award, please contact Laurie outreach efforts to all farmers, especially 2. Demonstrated service above and Langstraat at NCIS at [email protected] or limited-resource farmers, by highlighting beyond to the crop insurance industry. 913-685-2767. an individual who has demonstrated 3. Represents themselves, their company, exceptional service. and the crop insurance industry well. Hudson Crop is a unit of Hudson Insurance Group, the US Insurance Division of come Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. OdysseyRe operates through 18 offices worldwide with $3.5 billion in policyholders’ surplus. Hudson grow Insurance Company is rated “A” (Excellent) XV by A.M. Best with us... and is widely licensed. With an exclusive strategic relationship with Growers National Cooperative*, Hudson Crop is a rapidly growing company, committed to providing our farmers and their agents with the best service our industry can offer. *GNC is not available in all states For career opportunities, contact: Hudson Crop Dan Gasser, National Sales Manager Jay Mongeau, National Claims Manager www.hudsoninsgroup.com 866-450-1445 Hudson Insurance Group is an equal opportunity provider. TRANQUILITY BASE HERE. THE EAGLE HAS LANDED. Crop protection at www.GreatAmericanCrop.com Great American Insurance Group, 580 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, is an equal opportunity provider. PRSRT. STD. U.S. POSTAGE PAID Permit No. 2157 KANSAS CI TY, MO 8900 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 600 Overland Park, Kansas 66210 5DLQ DQG +DLO $JULFXOWXUDO ,QVXUDQFH 6HUYLQJ $PHULFD¶V )DUPHUV 6LQFH )URP 0XOWLSOH 3HULO &URS ,QVXUDQFH /LYHVWRFN DQG &URS+DLO WR )DUP 3URSHUW\ DQG &DVXDOW\ $XWR /LDELOLW\ 8PEUHOOD DQG RWKHU VSHFLDOW\ OLQHV 5DLQ DQG +DLO KDV WKH SURJUDPV WR PHHW \RXU FXVWRPHU¶V XQLTXH ULVN PDQDJHPHQW QHHGV &RQWDFW 5DLQ DQG +DLO WRGD\ WR VHH ZKDW FRYHUDJHV EHVW ILW \RXU FXVWRPHU¶V IDUPLQJ RSHUDWLRQ &DOO RU YLVLW ZZZ5DLQ+DLOFRP