Whether a private arbitrator has authority to determine 'Good Farming Practices' in a federal crop insurance dispute

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented for the Supreme Court concern the authority of a private arbitrator in a crop insurance dispute, including whether a private arbitrator has the authority to render a determination as to “Good Farming Practices,” as defined in a Federal Crop Insurance Policy issued pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Act. In the case of Balvin vs. Rain and Hail, LLC, the Eighth Circuit rendered an unprecedented decision refusing to vacate an arbitration award where the Eighth Circuit assumed the private arbitrator had made a “good farming practices determination.” Such determinations are plainly outside the scope of the Aribtrator’s authority, and this decision appears to contradict the text of the Federal Crop Insurance Act and the terms of a federally reinsured crop insurance policy itself, which is Codified as Federal Law in the Code of Federal Regulations. This case presents questions of exceptional importance to America’s row crop farmers who participate in the Federal Crop Insurance Program including: 1) Cana “Good Farming Practices” Dispute be resolved in private arbitration or must it proceed through an administrative review process as provided for under the Federal Crop Insurance Act? 2) Does a Private Arbitrator have the authority to determine “arbitrability” under the Federal Crop Insurance Policy? 3) Can an Arbitrator Determine “Appraised Production,” Where the Federal Regulatory Requirements for Appraisals of Production Have Not Been Satisfied, Without Making an Impermissible Policy Interpretation? i