NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt's Dairy Farm, LLC ( 2023 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0025n.06
No. 21-2792
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
) Jan 11, 2023
NAU COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY,
) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. ON APPEAL FROM THE
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
)
ALT’S DAIRY FARM, LLC, COURT FOR THE WESTERN
)
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Respondent-Appellant. )
)
OPINION
)
Before: DONALD, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. For federally reinsured crop-insurance contracts, the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) sets common terms, including a requirement that the
parties arbitrate coverage disputes. In resolving such controversies, the arbitrator must defer policy
interpretations to the Risk Management Agency (RMA) or FCIC, or else the arbitration award may
be nullified.
Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC (Alt’s Dairy) lost at an arbitration with its insurer, NAU Country
Insurance Company (NAU). Several months later, NAU petitioned for a district court to confirm
the arbitration award in its favor. Alt’s Dairy responded by filing a counter-petition to nullify the
arbitration award, blaming its loss on an alleged impermissible policy interpretation by the
arbitrator. As we explain below, the counter-petition to nullify did not comply with the substance
or time limits of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), whose requirements govern Alt’s Dairy’s
No. 21-2792, NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC
challenge to the arbitration award in federal court. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s
ruling in favor of NAU and the dismissal of Alt’s Dairy’s counter-petition to nullify.
I.
After Alt’s Dairy’s 2017 apple crop was damaged by freezing weather, it sought recovery
from NAU.1 The loss was calculated under a fresh-fruit-quality endorsement, which provided
additional coverage when a certain percentage of its apple production was sold as fresh in any of
the preceding four years. NAU allegedly agreed that Alt’s Dairy met those requirements in 2015
based on its apple production in 2013. But the insurer later declined to provide such coverage after
concluding that the 2017 crop did not qualify. The parties’ dispute over fresh-fruit coverage went
to arbitration, as required by the insurance policy. The arbitrator heard from the parties’ experts,
an NAU employee, employees of Alt’s Dairy’s customers, and Jason Rowekamp, a regional
compliance manager for the RMA, and the agency that manages the FCIC. The arbitrator entered
an award for NAU on March 11, 2020.
Those are the immediate facts of the case, but to fully understand the dispute, an
explanation of the parties’ relationship is warranted. Their relationship is no ordinary insurer-
insured arrangement. NAU sold its policies to Alt’s Dairy under the Federal Crop Insurance Act
of 1980 (the Act) and its accompanying regulations, which allow for federal reinsurance of crop
insurance. Reinsurance agreements allow for subsidization of crop insurance by the federal
government, specifically, the FCIC. See generally J. Grant Ballard, A Practitioner’s Guide to the
Litigation of Federally Reinsured Crop Insurance Claims, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 531, 536 (2013).
But subsidized insurance comes with a catch: the terms of every federally reinsured crop insurance
policy are set by the FCIC and codified at 7 C.F.R. § 457.8, the Common Crop Insurance Policy
1
Alt’s Dairy purchased both common crop insurance and apple crop insurance from NAU.
-2-
No. 21-2792, NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC
(the common policy or CCIP). See 7 C.F.R. § 457.2(b). And though that policy calls for arbitration
when mediation proves unfruitful, it limits the arbitrator’s role in the resolution of disputes
involving a policy or procedure interpretation. CCIP § 20(a)(1). Only the RMA or the FCIC has
the authority to interpret the common policy, the FCIC’s regulations, and the Act. Id. So, when
an arbitrator steps outside his or her role and interprets any of the above provisions, the usual
consequence is severe—nullification of the arbitration award. Id. § 20(a)(1)(ii).
And nullification of the award is what Alt’s Dairy seeks here. The insured maintains that
the arbitrator of its dispute with NAU ventured outside his authority and interpreted the common
policy. Alt’s Dairy raised this objection first by asking the FCIC for a final agency determination
about the apple crop provisions. The request Alt’s Dairy submitted is not in our record, but the
agency determination reflects that it was submitted May 6, 2020. The FCIC determined on July
21, 2020, that the “key inquiry” in determining whether apples are sold as fresh “is whether the
price received is commensurate with the price generally received by other growers for fresh
apples.” FAD-295, R. 10-6, PageID 115. But the FCIC never addressed whether the arbitration
award should be nullified.
Meanwhile, NAU asked the district court on July 1 to confirm the arbitration award in its
favor under section 9 of the FAA. See 9 U.S.C. § 9. The insurer noted that Alt’s Dairy had not
moved to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award within the three-month time limit in
section 12 of the FAA. See id. § 12. Alt’s Dairy filed its opposition and a counter-petition to
nullify the arbitration award under the common policy and the FCIC regulations on August 28. It
argued that the nullification provisions, not the FAA, provided the only relief it needed. And
because the arbitrator’s award deviated from the later-issued agency determination, and Alt’s
Dairy had filed suit within the one-year limit in the common policy, it asked the court to nullify
-3-
No. 21-2792, NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC
the award.
NAU moved to dismiss the counter-petition. It asked the court to apply the FAA’s three-
month time limit for motions to vacate and dismiss the counter-petition as untimely. See 9 U.S.C.
§ 12. Alt’s Dairy again noted that nullification under the common policy and its accompanying
regulations is different than vacatur under the FAA and does not require compliance with the FAA.
Compare id., with CCIP § 20(a)(1)(ii). But Alt’s Dairy asked for permission to amend its counter-
petition to add an FAA vacatur claim to “moot” NAU’s argument that the common policy offered
no relief. Alt’s Dairy argued that timeliness was no issue because the parties had agreed to extend
the FAA’s deadlines in the common policy.
After hearing oral argument, the district court ruled for NAU from the bench. Its reasoning
was four-fold. First, it determined that the FAA provides the exclusive remedy for challenges to
arbitration awards when a contract is covered by the FAA. Second, the district court found that
this crop insurance contract was covered by the FAA, so the FAA controlled this case. Third, the
district court determined that the common policy was not a “parallel procedural vehicle,” so Alt’s
Dairy’s counter-petition had to comply with the FAA. In fact, the district court noted the one-year
time limit in the common policy aligns with the FAA’s one-year time limit for confirmation of an
award. Finding the counter-petition untimely, it dismissed Alt’s Dairy’s counter-petition and
denied its motion to amend. Fourth, and finally, the district court concluded that, in the alternative,
the arbitrator did not exceed his authority. Alt’s Dairy timely appealed.
II.
We review both the dismissal of Alt’s Dairy’s petition and the denial of its motion to amend
de novo. See Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (noting that while the denial of
motions to amend are normally reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard, the standard is
-4-
No. 21-2792, NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC
de novo when the motion is denied because “the amended pleading would not withstand a motion
to dismiss” (quoting Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield,
552 F.3d 430, 437 (6th Cir. 2008)); AK Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 163 F.3d 403,
407 (6th Cir. 1998).
This fresh look calls upon us to answer the same, central questions the district court
addressed: (1) Does the FAA apply as the exclusive remedy to challenges to arbitration awards
entered under the common policy? (2) If yes, does its three-month time limit for motions to vacate
bar Alt Dairy’s petition to nullify? For reasons set forth below, and as we discussed in Bachman
Sunny Hill Fruit Farms, Inc. v. Producers Agric. Ins. Co., __ F.4th __, No. 21-2868 (6th Cir.
January 11, 2023), we hold that the FAA applies, and its three-month time limit bars Alt’s Dairy’s
petition to nullify.
A. Does the FAA Apply?
The FAA “makes contracts to arbitrate ‘valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,’ so long as
their subject involves ‘commerce.’” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582
(2008) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2). So by the usual measure, the FAA applies here.
Yet, Alt’s Dairy suggests that its agreement with NAU is governed by the common policy
language requiring a federal court to enforce the one-year time limit provided for by the common
policy because that unique nullification process does not fit neatly within the FAA’s procedural
framework. This does not address the binding precedent that applies here—namely, Decker v.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 205 F.3d 906 (6th Cir. 2000) and Corey v. N.Y. Stock
Exch., 691 F.2d 1205 (6th Cir. 1982). “Once an arbitration is conducted under a valid arbitration
contract, the FAA ‘provides the exclusive remedy for challenging acts that taint an arbitration
award.’” Decker, 205 F.3d at 909 (emphasis added) (quoting Corey, 691 F.2d at 1211); see
-5-
No. 21-2792, NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC
Bachman Sunny Hill, slip op. at 5–7 (discussing the implications and holdings of Corey and
Decker).
Alt’s Dairy claims its case is different because it is a private agreement between Alt’s Dairy
and NAU. To grant Alt’s Dairy a non-FAA judicial remedy, we would have to conclude that our
holdings in Corey and Decker do not govern here. But that precedent applies for three key reasons:
(1) Congress has not changed the relevant parts of the FAA since our decisions in Corey and
Decker, meaning the FAA is the “exclusive remedy” here; (2) Congress did not grant the FCIC
the authority to create alternative judicial remedies to challenge arbitration awards; and (3) the
common policy provides for a unique administrative remedy of nullification but not a judicial
remedy of nullification. Bachman Sunny Hill, slip op. at 7–9.
An opportunity for nullification occurs when the parties and arbitrator did not seek an FCIC
interpretation during an arbitration and should have, 7 C.F.R. § 400.766(b)(4), or when a party
disputes an interpretation after an award is rendered and a review determines that an inconsistent
interpretation materially affects the award, RMA, U.S.D.A., Final Agency Determination: FAD-
230 (April 10, 2015). See Bachman Sunny Hill, slip op. at 8. In either case, a party can appeal the
FCIC’s decision, and a district court can review and enforce final determinations from the
Department of Agriculture’s National Appeals Division. See 7 C.F.R. § 11.13(a). Or a district
court, if presented with a timely motion to vacate under section 10(a)(4) of the FAA, can determine
that an arbitration award must be vacated because of the disregarded FCIC interpretation. 9 U.S.C.
§ 10(a)(4); see, e.g., Farmers Mut. Hail Ins. Co. of Iowa v. Miller, No. 20-1978, 2021 WL
3044275, at *2–3 (6th Cir. July 20, 2021).
Here, Alt’s Dairy did not ask the district court to review an appeal from an FCIC decision
or to vacate the arbitration award under section 10(a)(4) of the FAA. Instead, Alt’s Dairy asked
-6-
No. 21-2792, NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC
the district court to nullify the arbitration award under the common policy, so Alt’s Dairy failed to
state a claim the district court could resolve. Bachman Sunny Hill, slip op. at 8–9.
B. Does the Three-Month Time Limit in FAA Section 12 Bar the Petition to Nullify?
Even if Alt’s Dairy sought relief under the FAA, its motion was still untimely. While Alt’s
Dairy argues that the parties agreed to extend the time limit to one year to challenge the arbitration
award, as stated in the common policy, CCIP § 20(b)(3), section 12 of the FAA only allows for a
three-month period to challenge the award, see 9 U.S.C. § 12. Because the petition was filed more
than five months after the entry of the arbitration award, it is untimely since the FAA is the
exclusive remedy here, which requires the petition to be filed within three months of the arbitration
award. Bachman Sunny Hill, slip op. at 9–10.
Alt’s Dairy’s claim that equitable tolling should apply to save its motion is also
unconvincing. This court has yet to decide whether equitable tolling is available in this context.
See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Berry, 92 F. App’x 243, 246–47 (6th Cir. 2004).
But we need not do so in this case. As in Berry, “the facts of this case clearly do not merit equitable
tolling.” Id. at 247. “In general, equitable tolling is available ‘when a litigant’s failure to meet a
legally-mandated deadline unavoidably arose from circumstances beyond that litigant’s control.’”
Zappone v. United States, 870 F.3d 551, 556 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Jackson v. United States,
751 F.3d 712, 718 (6th Cir. 2014)). The burden to seek nullification was Alt’s Dairy’s, whether
through the administrative process, see FAD-232, or through a timely motion to vacate, Corey,
691 F.2d at 1211–12.
Ultimately, the parties’ agreement under the common policy did not extend the deadline in
section 12 of the FAA for seeking vacatur, so Alt’s Dairy’s petition must be barred by the three-
-7-
No. 21-2792, NAU Country Ins. Co. v. Alt’s Dairy Farm, LLC
month time limit in section 12 of the FAA.2 Thus, the district court correctly determined that
amending the petition to nullify to include a claim for vacatur under section 10 of the FAA would
be futile. Because of this, the district court’s alternative reasoning for its holding—its conclusion
that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority—does not require review on appeal.
III.
For those reasons, we hold that the FAA governs the arbitration agreements in federally
reinsured crop-insurance policies, and we find that Alt’s Dairy’s petition to nullify defied its
substance and procedures. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
2
In so holding, we take no position on whether the FAA’s time limits are jurisdictional.
-8-