7 C.F.R. § 400.351
Basis and applicability
The regulations contained in this subpart are issued pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) (the Act), to prescribe the procedures for Federal preemption of State laws and regulations not consistent with the purpose, intent, or authority of the Act. These regulations are applicable to all policies of insurance, insured or reinsured by the Corporation, contracts, agreements, or actions authorized by the Act and entered into or issued by FCIC.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 770 N.E.2d 980 (Mass. 2002).
ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 770 N.E.2d 980 (Mass. 2002). “See 7 C.F.R. §§ 400.351 - 400.352 (2002). The regulations, issued in 1990, first set forth a broad statement of preemption: “No State or local governmental body or non-governmental body shall have the authority to promulgate rules or regulations, pass laws, or issue policies or…”
IGF Ins. v. Hat Creek P'ship, 76 S.W.3d 859 (Ark. 2002). “In that case, the State of Kansas challenged the ability of the FCIC to promulgate regulations preempting state laws "not consistent with the purpose, intent, or authority of the Act," 7 C.F.R. § 400.351 , and applicable to insurance policies which are either insured or…”
Brown v. Crop Hail Mgmt., Inc., 813 F. Supp. 519 (S.D. Tex. 1993). “352 states: ' No state or local governmental body or non-governmental body shall have the authority to promulgate rules or regulations, pass laws, or issue policies or decisions that directly or indirectly affect or govern agreements, contracts, or actions authorized by this…”
Owen v. Crop Hail Mgmt., 841 F. Supp. 297 (W.D. Mo. 1994). “Subpart P — Preemption of State Laws and Regulations 7 C.F.R. § 400.351 Basis and applicability.”
Dailey v. Am. Growers Ins., 103 S.W.3d 60 (Ky. 2003). “Furthermore, 7 C.F.R. § 400.351 provides: The regulations contained in this subpart are issued pursuant to the [FCIA] .”
State of Kansas, Ex Rel. Ron Todd, Comm'r of Ins. of the State of Kansas v. United States of Am., 995 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1993). “ANALYSIS The issue before us is whether the FCIC can promulgate regulations preempting state laws “not consistent with the purpose, intent, or authority of the Act,” 7 C.F.R. § 400.351 , and applicable to insurance policies which are either-insured or reinsured by the FCIC.”
Wanamaker Nursery, Inc. v. John Deere Risk Prot., Inc., 364 F. Supp. 3d 839 (E.D. Tenn. 2019). “7 C.F.R. § 400.351 (noting that federal law and regulation preempt "[s]tate laws and regulations not consistent with the purpose, intent, or authority of the [FCIA].”
Rolling Plains Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Cook, 169 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1999). “7 C.F.R. § 400.351 . (a) No state or local governmental body or non-governmental body shall have the authority to promulgate rules or regulations, pass laws, or issue policies or decisions that directly or indirectly affect or govern agreements, contracts, or actions authorized…”
State of Kan., Ex Rel. Todd v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 1491 (D. Kan. 1992). “Plaintiff filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, in particular, an order invalidating and enjoining the enforcement of 7 C.F.R. §§ 400.351 and 400.-352 (1991). The principal issue in this suit is the authority of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation…”
Greenwich Ins. v. Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n, 808 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2015). “§ 1511 (2012) for the proposition that MPCI is exempt from state and local taxes and 7 C.F.R. § 400.351 (b)(2) and (5) for the proposition that MWUA’s post-Katrina assessments could not be based on MPCI premiums.”
Lyerly v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins., 540 S.E.2d 469 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000). “The circuit court stated, “Federal regulations codified in 7 C.F.R. § 400.351 and § 400.352 preempt state law causes of action as to all policies of insurance issued or reinsured by [the Corporation].”
Meyer v. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co., 957 F. Supp. 1492 (D. Wyo. 1997). “The Todd case involved Kansas’ challenge to the FCIC’s promulgation of regulations preempting state laws “not consistent with the purpose, intent, or authority of the Act,” 7 C.F.R. § 400.351 , and applicable to insurance policies which are either insured or reinsured by the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.