Howard v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 540 F.2d 695 (1976) p624.

• P bought insurance on his crops against bad weather from D.
• In 1973 the tobacco crop was alleged to have been extensively damaged by heavy rains resulting in a loss to three Ps in excess of $35,000.
• Filed a claim with P.
• P denied the claim as the stocks were already tilled under when P’s inspector went to the farm to see the damage.
• There was a portion of the policy that provides that the stalks shall not be destroyed until the corporation makes an inspection.

District court held on the motion for summary judgement that there is a condition precedent to plaintiff’s recovery which forfeited the coverage.

1. Was the compliance by D with the provision of the policy a condition precedent to the recovery?
2. Does the act of plowing under the tobacco stalks forfeit the coverage of the policy?

1. District court erroneously held on the motion for summary judgement that there is a condition precedent to plaintiff’s recovery which forfeited the coverage. D’s motion for summary judgement was improperly allowed.
2. Our narrow holding is that merely plowing or disking under the stalks does not of itself operate to forfeit coverage under the policy.

When there is doubt in insurance policies as to whether words create a promise or condition precedent, they will be construed as creating a promise. Warranty and condition precedent are often used interchangeably to create a condition of the insured’s promise. Can have same meaning and effect.