assignment of insurance proceeds form

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Assignment of Insurance Proceeds After Loss

Assignment of insurance benefits is a pretty boring aspect of insurance law. But, the topic came in handy for me this evening.

I just finished a claims practice training seminar with five of our firm’s newer attorneys in Reno, Nevada. Like many others this week, my flight to Newark cancelled. I am stuck on a "red eye" via Los Angeles.

Knowing that I needed to get some sleep on the flight, I knew exactly what to do – research insurance law.

A recent decision, City Center West v. American Modern Home Insurance , 1  reiterated the majority view that assignments of insurance proceeds after a loss are valid despite a policy provision preventing an assignment of the policy:

 We do not agree with American Modern that the nonassignment provision precludes the assignment of a postloss claim under the Policy. American Modern argues that the term Policy necessarily captures any rights that “flow directly from the policy and would not exist absent the policy.” But the weight of authority is that assignment of a postloss claim under an insurance policy is not an assignment of the policy. A leading treatise states: “[T]he great majority of courts adhere to the rule that general stipulations in policies prohibiting assignments of the policy, except with the consent of the insurer, apply only to assignments before loss, and do not prevent an assignment after loss….” 3 Steven Plitt et al., Couch on Insurance § 35:8 (3d ed.2013); see, e.g., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 63 So.3d 955, 963 (La.2011) (“Post-loss assignment of claims arising under the policy is not equivalent to the assignment of the policy itself….”); Windey v. N. Star Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 43 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Minn.1950) ( “Assignment, after loss, of the proceeds of insurance does not constitute an assignment of the policy, but only of a claim or right of action on the policy.”).

Who needs sleeping pills when insurance case law is available on the Internet?

1 City Center West v. American Modern Home Insurance , No. 12-1343, 2014 WL 464219 (10th Cir., Feb. 6, 2014) .

Related Posts

Understanding the Implications of the Heritage Market Conduct Study and $1 Million Consent Order Penalty

$18 Million Bad Faith Verdict Regarding Mobile Home Loss

Fire Science—John Lentini’s Book, Scientific Protocols for Fire Investigation, Is a Must-Own Reference For Those Involved With Fire Losses and Claims

We’re ready to serve you.

Our firm represents residential, commercial and government entities in seeking timely, fair and proper compensation. We also support adjusters and contractors and work to protect their fees. In addition, we proudly serve as a reputable firm for referring attorneys to entrust their clients with should they be approached with an insurance claim case. Don’t fight insurance companies on your own. Contact us today!

Expert Insights Delivered to You

Assignment of insurance policies and claims | Practical Law

Assignment of insurance policies and claims

Practical law uk practice note w-031-6021  (approx. 19 pages).

Assignment of Proceeds of Insurance Policies

Practical law canada standard document 8-617-8880  (approx. 7 pages), get full access to this document with practical law.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can enhance productivity, increase efficiency, and improve response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

• Increase efficiency
• Enhance productivity
• Improve response time
• Taking Security in Collateral
• Canada (Common Law)

• Free Consultation: 972-263-3722 Tap Here to Call Us

Assignment Of Insurance Proceeds

Like other contract rights, the right to insurance proceeds can be assigned, giving the assignee the right to recover under the policy.

This issue is discussed in the 1968, Texas Supreme Court opinion styled, McAllen State Bank v. Texas Bank & Trust Company, Trustee.

Texas Bank claimed proceeds of a life insurance policy as successor to the named beneficiary asserting the policy was pledged as security for a loan made to the deceased.

The lower court had held that the named beneficiary held a superior right to the life insurance policy.

This court got into a lengthy discussion citing other court opinions and eventually ruled as follows.

All the elements of a pledge are present in this case.  The elements of a pledge are (1) a pledgor and a pledgee, (2) a debt or obligation, and (3) a contract of pledge which consists of the following: (a) possession of the pledged property passing from the pledgor to the pledgee; (b) legal title of the pledged property remaining in the pledgor; (c) the pledgee having a lien on the property for the payment of the debt; and (d) a right of redemption of the property in the pledgor.

It is undisputed that the deceased owed a valid debt to the bank.  A contract of pledge is demonstrated by the language of the three notes the deceased executed.  Possession of the insurance policy passed from the deceased to the bank.  The deceased retained legal title in the policy, as evidenced by the fact that he changed the beneficiary of the policy after he gave possession of the policy to the bank.  Also, it is clear from the language of the notes and from correspondence introduced into evidence that the policy was given to the bank to secure the note and that the bank was to have a lien on the policy for the payment of the debt.  In view of these facts it is held that the life insurance policy in question was pledged to the bank.

However, it must be kept in mind that a policy may contain a non-assignment clause, which will be enforced.

An example of the non-assignment clause is found in the 1994, Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion, Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Gerdes .  That clause read,  “Your rights and duties under this policy may not be assigned without our written consent.”  The court found this unambiguously precluded an assignment.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Corporate Finance
• Corporate Finance Basics

Assignment of Proceeds: Meaning, Pros and Cons, Example

Diane Costagliola is a researcher, librarian, instructor, and writer who has published articles on personal finance, home buying, and foreclosure.

Investopedia / Jiaqi Zhou

What Is an Assignment of Proceeds?

An assignment of proceeds occurs when a beneficiary transfers all or part of the proceeds from a letter of credit to a third-party beneficiary . Assigning the proceeds from a letter of credit can be utilized in many types of scenarios, such as to pay suppliers or vendors in a business transaction or to settle other debts.

Key Takeaways

• An assignment of proceeds can be used to redirect funds from a line of credit to a third party.
• An assignment of proceeds must be approved by the financial institution that granted the line of credit following a request and fulfillment of any obligations by the original beneficiary.
• A benefit of this type of transaction is the ability to redirect only a portion of the proceeds, in which case both the original beneficiary and third party can access the same letter of credit.
• A drawback of this type of transaction is that the original beneficiary is still responsible for fulfilling all requirements under the letter of credit, even when the funds are redirected to the third party.
• This type of transaction is used in a number of circumstances, such as when paying suppliers or vendors, or when settling outstanding debts.

Understanding an Assignment of Proceeds

A letter of credit is a letter from a bank guaranteeing that a buyer's payment to a seller will be received on time and for the correct amount. In the event that the buyer is unable to make a payment on the purchase, the bank will be required to cover the full or remaining amount of the purchase. The original beneficiary, the named party who is entitled to receive the proceeds from a letter of credit, may choose to have them delivered to a third party instead, through an "assignment of proceeds."

Due to the nature of international dealings, including factors such as distance, differing laws in each country, and difficulty in knowing each party personally, the use of letters of credit has become a very important aspect of international trade.

In order to process an assignment of proceeds, the original beneficiary of the letter of credit must submit a request to the bank or other financial institution issuing the letter of credit requesting to assign the funds to a different individual or company. The assignment of proceeds will need to be approved by the financial institution once it is submitted, pending the fulfillment of any requirements set forth in the letter of credit.

If the original beneficiary does not meet the obligations outlined in the letter of credit, no assignment will take place. Once approved, the bank or other entity will release the money to the specified third party to be drawn upon at will.

Advantages and Disadvantages of an Assignment of Proceeds

The main benefit of an assignment of proceeds is that the original beneficiary has the ability to assign all or just a portion of the letter of credit to the third party. The original beneficiary will retain access to any portion of the proceeds not redirected to the third party. This allows both entities to make use of the same letter of credit when necessary.

This benefit must be weighed against the potential drawback of this type of transaction. When an assignment of proceeds takes place, the financial institution is not contracting directly with the third-party beneficiary. It is only acting as an agent in supplying the funds to the third party. The original beneficiary is still responsible for completing any and all requirements under the letter of credit.

Example of an Assignment of Proceeds

Assume XYZ Customer, in Brazil, is purchasing widgets from ABC Manufacturer, in the United States. In order to sign off on the deal, ABC Manufacturer requires that XYZ Customer obtains a letter of credit from a bank to mitigate the risk that XYZ may not pay ABC for the widgets once ABC has shipped them out of the country.

At this point, ABC Manufacturer is able to request that a portion of these funds be redirected to DEF Supplier, whom ABC still owes money for parts used in making the widgets. Even though a portion of the funds has been redirected to DEF Supplier, ABC Manufacturer still has to fulfill its obligations under the letter of credit, such as shipping out the widgets to XYZ.

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

01 Jun Securing an Interest: Federal Crop Insurance Proceeds

• Categorized Crop Insurance , Finance and Credit , Micah Brown , Secured Transactions , Underserved Communities, BIPOC , Uniform Commercial Code

In agricultural finance, it is common for creditors to obtain an interest in a farmer’s crop insurance payments to secure a loan. This article discusses the availability of federal crop insurance proceeds to creditors and the laws that govern interests in these proceeds. Basically, there are two separate sets of laws that apply to creditor’s interests in crop insurance proceeds: Article 9 of the UCC, and the Federal Crop Insurance Act.

Many agricultural producers borrow money to successfully run their operations. Typically, the lender requires the borrower to give a security interest in personal property such as livestock, crops, or equipment before supplying the funds. A security interest is an interest held by a lender in property, referred to as collateral , that has been pledged by a debtor. This interest allows the lender to take possession or sell the collateralized property if the debt is not paid. In these situations, the producer-debtor and lender-creditor have entered into a secured transaction , which is primarily governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).

The UCC is a collection of rules affecting commercial transactions, and every state has chosen to enact some version of the rules within it, including Article 9. Specifically, Article 9 contains rules and requirements that creditors must satisfy to obtain an enforceable security interest in certain collateral. In general, Article 9 requires that the creditor satisfy two steps to obtain an enforceable interest. The first of those steps is attachment of the security interest, which is typically accomplished by executing a security agreement. The second step is perfection, which is typically satisfied by filing a UCC-1 financing statement. Once a creditor satisfies these two steps, they hold an enforceable security interest in the collateral. Thus, a secured creditor can enforce its interest to gain possession of the collateralized property, sell the property and use the funds to satisfy the debtor’s loan debt.

Creditors who satisfy these steps usually hold an Article 9 security interest in collateral, but there are some instances where Article 9 rules do not entirely govern a creditor’s interest. Sometimes state Article 9 laws are replaced by federal laws depending on the property serving as collateral for a creditor’s security interest. In agricultural secured transactions, this occurs when federal crop insurance proceeds are serving as collateral to secure a loan. Specifically, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (“FCIA”) replaces some Article 9 rules when a creditor seeks to enforce their interest in a producer’s insurance proceeds.

Although creditors can gain an Article 9 security interest in federal crop insurance proceeds, these interests are not always enforceable because the FCIA governs interests in these proceeds. The FCIA is a federal law, passed by Congress, and it applies to the entire United States and preempts or supersedes laws such as certain UCC provisions passed by state legislatures. The FCIA contains a statutory provision that directly preempts Article 9 security interest in insurance proceeds. Specifically, this provision explains the extent of the FCIA’s preemptive effect of Article 9 rules.

Under Section 1509 of the FCIA, “claims for indemnities…shall not be liable to attachment, levy garnishment, or any other legal process before payment to the insured….” Congress enacted this statutory provision with the intent of limiting a creditor’s ability to enforce an Article 9 security interest against federal crop insurance proceeds. The statute expressly prohibits creditors from enforcing an Article 9 security interest against a producer’s insurance proceeds. However, Congress did not intend the FCIA to completely preempt Article 9 security interests.

In general, the FCIA prohibits creditors from enforcing an Article 9 security interest in insurance proceeds, but only “before payment to the insured….” Under §1509, Congress clearly mandates that a producer’s insurance proceeds are not subject to a creditor’s security interest when proceeds have not yet been issued by a producer’s insurance provider. In other words, a creditor holding an Article 9 security interest can enforce that interest once insurance proceeds are issued to a producer-debtor. Thus, both the FCIA and Article 9 rules govern interests in crop insurance proceeds, but at separate periods of time.

Overall, whether the FCIA preempts an Article 9 security interest in crop insurance proceeds depends primarily upon timing. If the producer-debtor has yet to receive an insurance payment from the insurance provider, §1509 of the FCIA governs. Thus, the creditor’s security interest in the insurance proceeds is not recognized and cannot be enforced. However, if the producer receives an insurance payment, state law applies and the creditor can enforce their Article 9 security interest against the producer to recover the insurance proceeds. Accordingly, whether the producer-debtor receives insurance proceeds controls whether the FCIA or Article 9 governs the creditor’s interest in proceeds.

Because the FCIA preempts Article 9 security interests before insurance proceeds paid to a producer, a creditor cannot enforce their interest against undistributed insurance funds. However, the FCIA offers creditors the ability to gain an interest in a producer’s insurance proceeds before an insurance payment is issued to a producer. Unlike creditors holding only a security interest, creditors may seek to gain an interest under the FCIA because it provides them the ability to receive insurance proceeds directly from an insurance provider. For creditors to obtain an interest in undistributed crop insurance proceeds, they must obtain an assignment of a producer’s insurance payment rights.

Assignment of Indemnity

The FCIA not only established the federal crop insurance program, but it also created the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (“FCIC”). The FCIC manages the federal crop insurance program and implements regulations to carry out the purpose of the FCIA. A regulation implemented by the FCIC, entitled “Assignment of Indemnity”, provides creditors the ability to obtain an interest in a producer’s insurance proceeds. This regulatory provision permits a producer to transfer their insurance policy rights to a creditor. A creditor who obtains an assignment has an interest in insurance proceeds that have not yet been issued. When an insurance payment is warranted, the creditor-assignee has the right to collect insurance proceeds directly from the insurance provider issuing the payment.

For a creditor to receive an assignment, a producer must properly execute an “Assignment of Indemnity” form. This from is provided by the producer’s crop insurance provider, and once the producer completes the form, they must submit it to their insurance provider for approval. If the insurance provider approves the assignment, the creditor is named as an assignee under the producer’s insurance policy and holds an interest in insurance proceeds that may be issued by the insurance provider. In situations when a claim on the insurance is approved, the insurance provider will send the insurance payment directly to the creditor-assignee on the policy.

Assignments vs. Security Interests

Both the FCIA regulations and Article 9 rules provide a method for creditors to obtain an interest in a producer’s crop insurance proceeds; however, these interests operate differently. For instance, assignments and security interests provide creditors separate methods of collecting insurance proceeds. Additionally, creditors who obtain an assignment become eligible to submit a claim under the insurance policy, but creditors holding only a security interest do not have that privilege. Creditor-assignees probably avoid more financial risk then creditors holding only a security interest because assignments provide creditors a greater opportunity to receive insurance proceeds, which increases the likelihood of being repaid the money loaned to a producer. Therefore, many creditors may seek to obtain an assignment because assignments likely provide creditors a superior interest in a producer’s crop insurance proceeds over Article 9 security interests.

Claims on Insurance Policy

Assignments most likely provide creditors a superior interest in proceeds for three reasons. First, the FCIA provides creditor-assignees the ability to submit an insurance claim under the policy directly to an insurance provider. Creditor-assignees can make a claim on an insurance policy when their producer-debtor fails to do so. This provides creditor-assignees extra protection because they do not have to rely on a producer to make an insurance claim to receive an insurance payment. For example, if a producer fails to make a claim, and their creditor-assignee submits a claim that is then approved, the creditor is now able to collect insurance funds that would not have otherwise been paid had they not submitted the claim.

In situations where a producer does not make a claim for insurance proceeds—even if the reason for crop-loss is covered under the insurance policy—creditors holding only a security interest cannot make an insurance claim on behalf of the producer. Although a creditor has a security interest in proceeds, they are not entitled to any benefit under the insurance policy. Making a claim to receive insurance proceeds is a benefit under the policy, so security interest creditors may not make a policy claim. This means security interest creditors cannot collect insurance proceeds when their producer-debtor does not make a claim on their insurance policy. Therefore, assignments provide creditors a greater opportunity to collect insurance proceeds because they do not have to rely on a producer to make a claim on the policy.

Collecting Insurance Proceeds

The second advantage assignments offer creditors is the ability to collect insurance proceeds directly. Typically, a producer may never receive insurance proceeds when they have assigned their indemnity rights to a creditor because a creditor-assignee collects an insurance payment. For example, when a producer (or a creditor-assignee) makes an insurance claim that is later approved by an insurance provider, the insurance provider sends the insurance payment check directly to the creditor-assignee. Once the creditor-assignee receives this payment, they can apply the funds to satisfy the producer’s loan debt.

Unlike creditor-assignees, creditors holding only a security interest cannot collect insurance proceeds directly from a producer’s insurance provider because Article 9 security interests are not recognized until proceeds are issued to a producer. Once an insurance provider issues a payment to a producer, a security interest creditor must file an action in a court to enforce their interest against the insurance proceeds. Meanwhile, the producer may use the insurance funds for other expenses while the creditor is in the process of enforcing their interest to collect the proceeds. When this occurs, the security interest creditor risks never collecting the entire amount of insurance proceeds to satisfy the producer’s loan debt. Thus, creditor-assignees are in a greater position to receive repayment for a producer’s loan because creditor-assignees collect insurance payments directly from insurance providers.

Lastly, assignments provide creditors a superior interest because it likely provides priority to insurance proceeds over creditors who hold only a security interest. Priority is the order in which creditors receive money to satisfy a debtor’s loan debt. This means the creditor with higher priority will receive payment before a creditor with lower priority. When two or more creditors have an interest in the same insurance proceeds, the creditor with first priority is the first to receive the proceeds. Therefore, the first priority creditor has their loan repaid before all other creditors.

Currently, there is no court case that directly rules on the issue of priority between a creditor-assignee and a security interest creditor who held competing interests in undistributed insurance proceeds. However, if this issue were to be litigated, it is likely a court will find that a creditor-assignee has first priority over a security interest creditor. Creditor-assignees likely have priority in insurance proceeds because the FCIA may continuously preempt Article 9 when creditor-assignees and security interest creditors are in a priority dispute.

The FCIA preempts Article 9 security interests before a producer receives insurance proceeds. Importantly, a producer may never receive insurance proceeds when they assign their payment rights to a creditor because the creditor-assignee will receive an insurance payment directly from an insurance provider. When insurance proceeds are paid directly to the creditor-assignee, they use the funds to satisfy the producer’s loan debt, which means the producer will likely not receive any of the insurance funds. In this situation, there is likely no “payment to the insured,” and the FCIA continues to preempt Article 9. In other words, the security interest creditor will likely hold an unenforceable interest and is unable to recover the insurance proceeds issued to the creditor-assignee. Thus, the creditor-assignee most likely has priority to the insurance proceeds and can use the insurance funds to satisfy the producer’s loan debt.

Many creditors providing loans to agricultural producers take an interest in the producer’s federal crop insurance proceeds, which is governed by the FCIA. While Article 9 usually governs a creditor’s security interest in collateral, the FCIA preempts some Article 9 rules. However, the FCIA only preempts Article 9 to a certain extent. In general, whether the FCIA preempts an Article 9 security interest in crop insurance proceeds depends primarily upon timing. If a producer-debtor has not received an insurance payment, the FCIA governs and only assignments are enforceable. If a producer receives an insurance payment, state law applies, and the creditor can enforce their Article 9 security interest against the producer to recover the proceeds.

Although the FCIA and Article 9 provide creditors the ability to gain an interest in crop insurance proceeds, a creditor with an assignment likely holds a more stable interest over a creditor holding only a security interest. Creditor-assignees likely have superior interests for three reasons. First, the FCIA regulations permit the creditor to make a claim on an insurance policy when their producer fails to do so. Second, most creditor-assignees have direct access to insurance proceeds because insurers will send insurance payments directly to the creditor, not the producer. Last, and most important, creditor-assignees likely have priority to the insurance funds over security interest creditors because the FCIA may continue to preempt Article 9 when insurance proceeds are issued directly to creditor-assignees. Accordingly, creditors may consider obtaining an assignment in order to better protect themselves from the risk of not receiving insurance proceeds to satisfy a producer’s loan debt.

To read more articles discussing secured transactions, click here .

For more National Agricultural Law Center information on Secured Transactions, click here .

Search the blog

Recent posts.

• The Feed: Volume 2, Issue 9
• Child Nutrition: Summer Nutrition Programs
• US International Trade Court Judge Vaden to deliver Western Conference keynote
• Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Texas Landowners’ 5th Amendment Takings Clause Case
• April Monthly Roundup
• Ag & Food Law Update
• Agricultural Marketing Service
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
• Commodity Credit Corporation
• Department of Energy
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Farm Service Agency
• Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
• Fish and Wildlife Service
• Food and Drug Administration
• Food and Nutrition Service
• Food Safety and Inspection Service
• Foreign Agricultural Service
• Forest Service
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Natural Resources Conservation Service
• Rural Development
• Rural Utilities Service
• United States Department of Agriculture
• Agritourism
• Animal Feeding Operations
• Animal Identification
• Animal Welfare
• Aquaculture
• The Deal with Dicamba
• WOTUS Update
• Elizabeth Rumley
• Emily Stone
• Harrison Pittman
• Jana Caracciolo
• Checking in on Crop Insurance
• Lending for Livestock, Credit for Crops
• Considering Carbon
• Resource Highlight
• Truth in Labeling Law(suits)
• Research Fellows
• Rusty Rumley
• Samantha Capaldo
• Samantha Mikolajczyk
• Biosecurity
• Biotechnology
• Checkoff Programs
• Commodity Programs
• Conservation Programs
• Cooperatives
• Country of Origin Labeling
• Crop Insurance
• Daily Update
• Disaster Assistance Programs
• Environmental Law
• Federal Loan Programs
• Finance and Credit
• Food Labeling
• Food Safety
• Growing Careers
• Immigration
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Land Ownership
• Land Use Regulation
• Landowner Liability
• Local Food Systems
• Marketing Orders
• Monthly Round Up
• National Organic Program
• Nutrition Programs
• Production Contracts
• Quarterly Newsletter
• Renewable Energy
• Right to Farm
• Secured Transactions
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act
• Endangered Species Act
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
• Food Safety Modernization Act
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Packers and Stockyards Act
• Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
• Sustainable Agriculture
• Transportation
• Underserved Communities, BIPOC
• Uniform Commercial Code
• Urban Agriculture
• Veterinary Law

Category Specific RSS

• Ag & Food Law Update (3,482)
• Agricultural Marketing Service (327)
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (183)
• Commodity Credit Corporation (38)
• Department of Energy (2)
• Environmental Protection Agency (657)
• Farm Service Agency (68)
• Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (42)
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (3)
• Fish and Wildlife Service (422)
• Food and Drug Administration (141)
• Food and Nutrition Service (79)
• Food Safety and Inspection Service (94)
• Foreign Agricultural Service (22)
• Forest Service (107)
• National Marine Fisheries Service (16)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (522)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (33)
• Rural Development (11)
• Rural Utilities Service (42)
• United States Department of Agriculture (271)
• Agritourism (17)
• Animal Feeding Operations (6)
• Animal Identification (1)
• Animal Law (17)
• Animal Welfare (35)
• Antitrust (6)
• Aquaculture (6)
• The Deal with Dicamba (17)
• WOTUS Update (15)
• Elizabeth Rumley (12)
• Emily Stone (14)
• Harrison Pittman (6)
• Jana Caracciolo (33)
• Checking in on Crop Insurance (8)
• Lending for Livestock, Credit for Crops (16)
• Considering Carbon (5)
• Procedure (13)
• Resource Highlight (7)
• Truth in Labeling Law(suits) (5)
• Research Fellows (7)
• Rusty Rumley (11)
• Samantha Capaldo (18)
• Samantha Mikolajczyk (25)
• Bankruptcy (18)
• Administrative Law (Federal and State Farm Programs) (231)
• Agribusiness Corporations (84)
• Agricultural Law: Attorney Roles and Educational Programs (145)
• Alien Land Ownership (Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land) (39)
• Animals — Animal Rights (241)
• Aquaculture Bibliography (90)
• Chapter 11 (13)
• Chapter 12 (85)
• Chapter 13 (4)
• General (83)
• Processors/Elevators/Warehouses (26)
• Biotechnology Bibliography (517)
• Commodities Futures (55)
• Antitrust Bibliography (42)
• Directors & Officer’s Liability (6)
• General Cooperatives Bibliography (103)
• Organizational Issues (55)
• Taxation Cooperatives Bibliography (33)
• Corporate Farming (Restrictions on Corporate Farming/Family Farm Preservation) (80)
• Energy Issues (219)
• Environmental Issues (914)
• Equine Law (123)
• Estate Planning/Divorce (176)
• Aliens (105)
• Child Labor (12)
• Collective Bargaining (80)
• General & Social Welfare (230)
• Domestic (270)
• International (101)
• Farmer-Processor Bargaining — Production Contracts (64)
• Federal Loan Programs (Farmers Home Administration/Farm Service Agency) (74)
• Finance and Credit Bibliography (132)
• Food and Drug Law (580)
• Forestry (162)
• Fruits and Vegetables — Perishable Agricultural Commodities (54)
• Hunger and Food Security Issues (156)
• Hunting/Recreation/Wildlife (80)
• International Trade Bibliography (485)
• Land Reform (179)
• Land Sales and Real Estate Finance Mortgages and Foreclosures (84)
• Land Use Planning and Farmland Preservation Techniques (294)
• Soil Erosion (54)
• Leases: Landlord-Tenant (82)
• Livestock and Packers & Stockyards (262)
• Marketing Boards/Marketing Orders/Marketing Promotion/Marketing Quotas (98)
• General (26)
• Incorporation (46)
• Individual Ownership (4)
• Partnership (13)
• Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture (456)
• Pesticides/Herbicides/Insecticides/Fungicides/Fertilizers (224)
• Public Lands (241)
• Rural Development Bibliography (225)
• Securities (18)
• Surveys (23)
• Sustainable and Organic Farming (147)
• Taxation Bibliography (402)
• Torts/Insurance (273)
• Trade Regulation and Antitrust (63)
• Transportation Bibliography (21)
• Treatises on Agricultural Law (9)
• Article Nine (Security Interests) (137)
• Article Seven (Documents of Title) (49)
• Article Two “A” (Lease of Goods) (3)
• Article Two (Sale of Goods) (68)
• Federal Preemption of Farm Products Exception (Section 1631) (37)
• General (including Letters of Credit) (14)
• Veterinary Law Bibliography (29)
• Water Rights: Agriculturally Related (593)
• Biosecurity (6)
• Biotechnology (11)
• Checkoff Programs (10)
• Commodity Programs (7)
• Conservation Programs (19)
• Cooperatives (2)
• Country of Origin Labeling (4)
• Crop Insurance (38)
• Daily Update (626)
• Disaster Assistance Programs (9)
• Environmental Law (207)
• Taxation (2)
• Farm Bill (23)
• Farm Labor (26)
• Federal Loan Programs (8)
• Finance and Credit (42)
• Food Labeling (112)
• Food Safety (44)
• Immigration (5)
• Intellectual Property (1)
• International Trade (19)
• Land Ownership (49)
• Land Use Regulation (7)
• Landowner Liability (26)
• Local Food Systems (7)
• Marketing Orders (3)
• Monthly Round Up (53)
• National Organic Program (9)
• Nutrition Programs (14)
• Pesticides (196)
• Production Contracts (9)
• Quarterly Newsletter (5)
• Renewable Energy (26)
• Right to Farm (18)
• Secured Transactions (25)
• Clean Air Act (14)
• Clean Water Act (110)
• Endangered Species Act (123)
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (59)
• Food Safety Modernization Act (3)
• National Environmental Policy Act (34)
• Packers and Stockyards Act (9)
• Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (12)
• Sustainable Agriculture (6)
• Taxation (9)
• The Feed (32)
• Transportation (3)
• Underserved Communities, BIPOC (714)
• Uniform Commercial Code (19)
• Urban Agriculture (7)
• Veterinary Law (2)
• Water Law (94)

• Practical Law

Assignment of insurance policies and claims

Practical law uk practice note w-031-6021  (approx. 19 pages), get full access to this document with a free trial.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can improve productivity, efficiency and response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

650+ full-time experienced lawyer editors globally create and maintain timely, reliable and accurate resources across all major practice areas.

83% of customers are highly satisfied with Practical Law and would recommend to a colleague.

81% of customers agree that Practical Law saves them time.

• Construction and engineering
• Construction insurance
• Credit, terrorism and political risks
• Cyber insurance
• Directors and officers
• Disputes, investigations and enforcement
• Insurance in commercial transactions
• Insurance intermediaries
• Legal expenses
• Making and dealing with claims
• Reinsurance
• Security, risk management and business continuity