U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2009

Ficus Farm, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture-Risk Management Agency

Ficus Farm, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture-Risk Management Agency
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided May 19, 2009 · Marcus, Pryor, Edenfield
325 F. App'x 898

Counsel

Michael D. Martin, Martin Law Office, Lakeland, FL, William Kenneth Crispin, Law Office of William K. Crispin, Tavernier, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Lisette M. Reid, U.S. Attorney’s Office, S.D. Florida, Anne R. Schultz, Kathleen M. Salyer, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Ficus Farm, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture-Risk Management Agency

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ficus Farm, Inc. (“Ficus Farm”), a nursery located in Loxahatchee Florida, appeals from the district court’s August 27, 2008, 2008 WL 4057741, order granting final summary judgment to United States Department of Agriculture-Risk Management Agency (“RMA”) et al. The *899 suit arose out of an insurer’s decision not to indemnify Ficus Farm for part of its claimed nursery losses. Ficus Farm had claimed an insurance loss of palms, ferns, Jessamine and Veriegated Ginger plants due to excessive moisture following a series of storms in 2005. The RMA reviewed the insurer’s decision and upheld the insurer’s partial denial of Ficus Farm’s claim because the owner of Ficus Farm (1) had misrepresented material facts to the insurer; (2) had destroyed certain crops without the written permission of the insurer in violation of the policy; and (3) had failed to mitigate its losses.

The district court upheld the agency determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support each of the agency’s findings, and its conclusion. After thorough review, we affirm the final order of summary judgment based on the district court’s well-reasoned and thorough opinion.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.