Ask:
I have an arable farm in a federal state that has so far been ASF-free. My insurers have now offered ASF crop loss insurance to protect my crop proceeds should ASF break out. How useful is such insurance?
Reply:
As with any insurance, it is an economic question whether the conclusion makes sense. It is a trade-off between the risk of damage occurring, the risk impact and the cost of insurance. Whether or not you need income loss insurance depends on what you’re willing to spend to get your money quickly.
If you have the money from a harvest in your bank account and can thus bridge five or six months, you can save yourself the need to take out ASP earnings damage insurance. If you are not so liquid, you need the quick insurance payments. However, you must ask yourself whether you can afford such insurance.
Economic losses in Brandenburg
I can report from experiences in Brandenburg that the insured farmers were happy to be insured. The statutory right to compensation essentially covers the same disadvantages as the insurance policies commonly used in the areas affected by ASF. However, these covered a little more than just the loss of earnings. Individual damage was recognized somewhat more generously by the insurance companies than by the authorities. Only in very few individual cases was the difference in market fruit farms of significant importance.
In fact, the insurance companies pay faster than the compensation authorities. Although the authorities paid compensation relatively quickly in view of the large number of cases, the insurance companies (especially with regard to the payment of advance payments) were generally quicker. The speed advantage is estimated to be around two to three months. This is not only due to the speed of the authorities or insurance clerks. In Brandenburg, the speed of the proceedings was also largely determined by the experts’ acceptance of the disadvantages and losses.
Both insurance companies and authorities have used the reports of the experts as an essential basis for the payment of the compensation. With only a few exceptions, the insurance companies accepted the expert findings. This was supported by the fact that the agricultural experts formed a working group at a very early stage in order to set uniform standards for the large number of reports. The insurance companies have accepted these standards.
The responsible state ministry rejected some damage positions at the expense of the farmers. An explicit recognition of the assessment standards by the state was not declared to the experts. The districts responsible for compensation had to make their own decisions. This led to further delays.
Pet owners should take out insurance
The situation is different for pet owners. Here, state compensation does not cover all damage. Some damages, which the state dismisses as indirect damages, are still disputed. These include, for example, insemination costs for a sow herd in the ASF area. If you inseminate your herd and ASF breaks out so that you have to have the animals culled, the animal health insurance and the state will not pay any compensation for your insemination costs. The state also does not cover higher costs at the slaughterhouse.
If your business is in the ASF area and you have animals slaughtered, not every slaughterhouse takes the animals. If you then have to drive them further, the state does not bear the higher transport costs and the higher cleaning costs that the slaughterhouse passes on to the farmers. The backups in Brandenburg also covered this damage. It is therefore advisable to take out income loss insurance in any case.
Lawyer Dr. Thomas Hansch
Geiersberger Glas & Partner mbB
Rostock
–
