Colby J. Byrd

Representative Experience

Condemnation, Eminent Domain, and Landowner Rights

• Obtained $900,000 settlement on behalf of landowners who sought just compensation from the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) in a condemnation case involving the partial taking of a 54.51-acre tract of land for the construction of a new turnpike. The settlement exceeded the court-appointed commissioners’ award by 200% and OTA’s appraised value by more than 500%.
• Negotiated a favorable settlement for a commercial real estate developer whose property was taken by the City of Oklahoma City for the construction of Scissortail Park as part of the Metropolitan Area Projects Plan 3 (MAPS 3). The settlement resulted in the developer’s acquisition of a valuable commercial development property located across the street from Scissortail Park.
• Negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of landowner whose billboard easement was taken by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) for ODOT’s reconstruction of the I-235/US-77 and I-44 interchange. The settlement allowed for the beneficial relocation of the landowner’s billboard easement.
• Successfully represented a national energy company in an ad valorem taxation dispute with county assessors for several rural counties in western Oklahoma. The county assessors had overvalued the company’s personal property by more than 2,000%. After establishing errors in the county assessors’ valuation methodology, negotiated a favorable settlement that saved the company more than $3 million in ad valorem taxes.

Federal Crop Insurance Disputes

• Obtained a $422,223 arbitration award on behalf of a Nevada rancher whose crop insurance provider denied its loss claim under the rancher’s Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) Rainfall Index crop insurance policy, which insured the rancher’s grassland against drought.
• Successfully defended a group of Indiana farmers in an arbitration proceeding in which the farmers’ private insurer sought to retroactively recover more than $2 million in indemnity payments the insurer claimed had been improperly paid to the farmers over a nine-year period. After concluding that the farmers held an insurable interest in the insured crops, the arbitrator held that the farmers were entitled to retain 100% of the indemnity payments the insurer was seeking to recover.
• Obtained a $384,000 arbitration award on behalf of a Texas farmer whose crop insurance provider denied its loss claim under the farmer’s multiple peril crop insurance policy, which insured the farmer’s organic corn crop against numerous eligible loss conditions.

Federal Farm Program Disputes

• Successfully represented Alabama farming partnership in its dispute with Risk Management Agency regarding the Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policy the partnership purchased from a private crop insurance provider. After an in-person hearing in Huntsville, Alabama, before the USDA National Appeals Division (NAD), an administrative judge overturned RMA’s adverse determination. As a result, the partnership received an additional indemnity payment from its insurer in an amount in excess of $450,000.
• Successfully represented Texas farmers in their dispute with Farm Service Agency regarding payments due to the farmers under the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). After receiving an unfavorable decision from an administrative judge and appealing that decision to the director of NAD, received a favorable determination that FSA’s adverse determination was barred by the doctrine of res judicata from assigning production and reducing producers NAP payments. As a result, the farmers received more than $200,000 in additional NAP payments from FSA. The farmers also recovered more than $30,000 in in attorneys’ fees and costs from FSA under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
• Successfully represented agricultural lender in its dispute with Farm Service Agency regarding FSA’s denial of lender’s loss claim under FSA’s Guaranteed Farm Loan Program. After an in-person hearing, the NAD administrative judge determined that FSA’s denial of lender’s loss claim was erroneous because FSA had failed to show any loan servicing deficiencies by lender that materially contributed to the final loss claimed by lender. Resulted in FSA paying lender more than $600,000 loss claim.