24 DEPARTMENT BULLETIN 912. 
reduced liability. Such a provision would, in practice, involve con- 
siderable difficulty, and the necessary adjustments, assuming that the 
plan were otherwise practical, would add materially to the expense of 
operation. 
Barring some such additional change in the contract as just indi- 
cated, there seems to be no reason why the company should have its 
indemnity payments reduced on the ground that adverse conditions, 
other than the occurrence of hail, have reduced the value of the in- 
sured crop. The premium rates are fixed on the basis of the preva- 
lence of hail in a given locality coupled with the susceptibility of the 
insured crop to damage from this hazard, and not on the basis of 
any probability of earlier loss from other causes. From this point 
of view it would seem that even the provision in the hail contract 
which denies liability in cases of earlier damage, from causes other 
than hail, to such an extent that the crop is not worth harvesting, 
should be coupled with a provision for the return of an appropriate 
portion of the premium in cases where the company uses its right 
to deny liability under this provision. 
Where mutual hail insurance companies write a term policy cov- 
ering specified crops on a given farm, the amount of insurance on a 
given acre will naturally vary with the total acreage of crops which 
are enumerated in the policy. The insurance per acre is ascertained 
under these circumstances by dividing the total amount of insurance 
or the face of the policy, by the number of acres planted to the kinds 
of crops which are covered by the insurance contract. Companies 
writing term hail policies have as a rule the same provision for the 
adjustment of losses as is in vogue with companies writing seasonal 
policies applicable to specific crops on specified fields. In a few 
instances, however, such companies adjust losses on a plan similar to 
that on which fire losses are settled, paying the actual estimated loss 
on each acre up to the amount of the insurance carried. 
Provisions in the hail policy with regard to notice of loss, proof 
of loss, and the payment of the indemnity due are essentially the 
same as in the fire policy. Xo liability .is assumed, however, for a 
loss which does not equal 5 per cent or more of the insurance on a 
given crop, and in case the insured reports a loss representing less 
than such percentage of the crop he is himself liable for the cost of 
investigating the claim for indemnity against such loss. This pro- 
vision appears to be rarely, if ever, enforced. The payment of a 
partial loss does not terminate the policy, but reduces the liability of 
the company by the amount paid on such loss. 
SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN HAIL INSURANCE. 
Whether the specific, one-season hail policy is written, or the 
blanket term policy, certain peculiar administrative problems enter 
which are not present in fire insurance. The writing of the former 
kind of policy gives rise to a strictly seasonal activity, hail insurance 
rarely being purchased on this plan until after the crop is already 
