Facts

Kewal Singh was engaged in almond farming in Fresno. In 2015, Singh's orchard was covered by a crop insurance policy that insured production and revenue for the crop against heat, drought and other natural causes. Singh's suffered losses to his crops due to severe heat conditions. Singh filed an insurance claim to Rain and Hail Insurance Service who denied the claim. The decision was upheld by the Risk Management Agency. Singh then filed suit against Federal Crop Insurance Corp. in relation to the denial of his insurance claim.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that RHIS's investigation was incorrect in stating that its well was not working, and that neither RHIS nor RMA offered a reasoned explanation for their determination. Plaintiff further argued that they had provided evidence that the amount of water available to the orchard exceeded the requirements, and that RMA rejected the evidence.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it gave a sufficient explanation as to why it denied the claim backed up by substantial evidence, and that the RMA did not reject evidence that plaintiff met the water requirement but instead disagreed with how the water amount was calculated. Defendant further contended that the RMA's determination was rational, reasonable and supported by the record.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that the agency's decision to uphold RHIS' denial of the claim was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.