The case involves a dispute between Arkansas farmers Victor Lance Dunigan, Robert Dale Dunigan, Paul Lemoine Johnson, and their farming partnership Dunigan and Johnson Farms against multiple insurance-related defendants including AG Resource Insurance LLC, AgriSompo North America Inc., and John K. Majure. The farmers filed suit in what appears to be a crop insurance coverage dispute, though the specific claims and damages sought are not detailed in the motion filing.
AgriSompo North America, which became involved in the litigation as the successor by merger to CGB Diversified Services Inc., doing business as Diversified Crop Insurance Services, is seeking complete dismissal of the case through summary judgment. The company filed its motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law and statement of undisputed material facts as required by local court rules.
The motion represents a standard defense strategy in insurance coverage disputes, where insurers typically argue that either no coverage exists under the policy terms or that the plaintiffs cannot establish the factual or legal basis for their claims. Summary judgment allows courts to resolve cases without trial when there are no genuine disputes about material facts.
The case is proceeding in the Delta Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas, with the motion filed on April 7, 2026. The involvement of multiple insurance entities suggests the dispute may involve complex coverage issues or potentially overlapping policies in the agricultural insurance context.
The defendants' motion follows standard procedural requirements, including the filing of evidentiary materials and compliance with Local Rule 56.1 governing summary judgment practice. The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the motion and present their own evidence and legal arguments opposing dismissal.
Agricultural insurance disputes have become increasingly common as farming operations face more complex coverage needs and insurers seek to limit their exposure in an industry facing climate and market volatility. The outcome of this case may provide guidance for similar disputes in Arkansas's agricultural sector.
The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the summary judgment motion, and the plaintiffs' response deadline has not been established in the available filings.