AB 2038 makes targeted amendments to Section 14085 of the California Insurance Code that tidy up wording and restate the existing licensing pathway for crop insurance adjusters. The bill keeps the core requirement that applicants hold an insurance adjuster license (except for the Section 14026 exam) and provide evidence of completion of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) loss adjustment training and competency testing.
While largely technical, the bill also underscores that all chapter provisions apply to crop adjusters unless expressly exempt or in conflict, and it reaffirms the Insurance Commissioner's authority to adopt implementing regulations — including the power to require additional competency standards or establish standards of practice. That regulatory backstop is the provision most likely to trigger compliance work by insurers, employers, and training providers if the Commissioner decides to act.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2038 amends Section 14085 to clarify licensing prerequisites for crop insurance adjusters, confirm definitional language, prohibit unlicensed practice, and remove drafting errors. It preserves and explicitly authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to adopt regulations that can add competency requirements or standards of practice beyond the FCIC curriculum.
Who It Affects
Crop insurance adjusters and applicants, private insurers and managing general agents that write or administer crop policies reinsured under the FCIC Standard Reinsurance Agreement, employers who hire adjusters, and training providers that deliver FCIC curricula or other competency programs.
Why It Matters
The bill reduces statutory ambiguity and preserves the state's regulatory tools, so compliance officers should watch for future rulemaking that could impose state-level testing, continuing education, or professional standards. Even as a technical clean-up, it clarifies employers' liability for using unlicensed adjusters — a concrete compliance exposure for insurers and contractors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2038 leaves the substance of California’s crop insurance adjuster licensing framework intact but fixes drafting problems and clarifies regulatory authority. The statute continues to require that a person applying for a crop insurance adjuster license hold an insurance adjuster license in California (while carving out the examination requirement in Section 14026) and show evidence of satisfactory completion of the FCIC loss adjustment training and competency testing tied to the federal Standard Reinsurance Agreement.
The bill restates the existing prohibitions: no one may act as or represent themselves as a crop insurance adjuster without the license, and employers may not assign crop claim adjustment work to anyone who is not licensed. That creates a clear, enforceable chain of responsibility: both individual adjusters and the entities that hire them must be able to demonstrate licensure.Crucially for future compliance, AB 2038 makes explicit that the provisions of the broader Insurance Code chapter apply to crop adjusters unless a conflict or exemption exists, and it grants the Commissioner explicit rulemaking authority to implement the article.
The statute mentions two concrete uses of that authority: setting additional competency requirements (either alongside or in place of the FCIC baseline) and establishing standards of practice for crop adjusters. In practice, that leaves room for California-specific tests, continuing education mandates, reporting obligations, or professional conduct rules to be layered atop the federal curriculum.Because the bill itself does not prescribe new state testing or standards, its immediate operational effect is modest.
The change that matters most is procedural: the Commissioner now has a clearer statutory hook to promulgate regulation. For compliance units, the takeaway is to monitor the Department of Insurance for possible implementing regulations and to ensure hiring, contracting, and recordkeeping practices already capture licensure and FCIC training proofs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2038 amends Section 14085 of the Insurance Code and corrects drafting errors without altering the core licensing path.
Applicants still must hold an insurance adjuster license (with an exception for the Section 14026 examination) to obtain a crop insurance adjuster license.
Applicants must provide evidence of satisfactory completion of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation loss adjustment training curriculum and competency testing tied to the FCIC Standard Reinsurance Agreement.
The bill explicitly forbids acting as a crop insurance adjuster or using unlicensed persons to adjust crop insurance claims, making employers liable if they contract with unlicensed adjusters.
The Insurance Commissioner is expressly authorized to adopt regulations that may require additional competency requirements or establish standards of practice for crop insurance adjusters.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Licensing prerequisites and FCIC training requirement
This subsection specifies the two-step licensing trigger: (1) obtain an insurance adjuster license (the statute carves out the Section 14026 exam requirement), and (2) produce evidence of successful completion of the FCIC loss adjustment training and competency testing. Practically, this preserves California’s alignment with the federal FCIC curriculum as the baseline for crop adjuster competency while retaining state control over the adjuster licensing vehicle.
Definitions for crop insurance and crop insurance adjuster
The bill defines “crop insurance” to include multi-peril crop insurance reinsured by the FCIC and lists covered perils; it defines “crop insurance adjuster” by function — investigating, negotiating, or settling crop claims. Those functional definitions matter in enforcement because they determine who needs a license: anyone performing those activities is inside the licensing net.
Prohibition on unlicensed practice
This short clause makes it a statutory violation to act as or hold oneself out as a crop insurance adjuster without the license. That gives the Department of Insurance a clear statutory basis to pursue unlicensed practice claims against individuals and supports civil or administrative discipline.
Employer liability for hiring unlicensed adjusters
Subdivision (d) makes it unlawful for a person or entity to contract with, employ, or use someone to adjust crop insurance claims unless that person is licensed. This is a direct compliance exposure for insurers, adjuster firms, and agricultural insurers who outsource adjustment work: their contracting and vendor-management processes must confirm licensure and retain proof.
Integration with the rest of the Insurance Code
The subsection states that all chapter provisions and implementing regulations apply to crop insurance adjusters unless specifically exempted or in conflict. By resolving earlier drafting duplications, the bill reduces ambiguity about whether general adjuster rules apply, which affects disciplinary procedures, continuing education, and consumer protection mechanisms that crop adjusters must follow.
Commissioner’s rulemaking authority
This clause gives the Insurance Commissioner a clear statutory mandate to adopt regulations implementing the article, explicitly including the ability to require additional competency prerequisites or to set standards of practice. That is the provision with the most forward-looking impact because it authorizes state-level regulatory choices that could go beyond the federal FCIC baseline — for example, state-specific competency exams, CE requirements, or conduct rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Licensed crop insurance adjusters — They gain clearer statutory confirmation that licensure is required, which reduces competition from unlicensed individuals and strengthens enforceability against unlicensed practice.
- Insurers and managing general agents — The clarified rules make vendor and workforce compliance obligations easier to document and defend, lowering legal uncertainty in claims handling and contracting.
- Farmers and insured producers — Clearer licensing and the potential for state standards of practice increase accountability for how crop claims are investigated and settled.
- Training providers offering FCIC curricula — The statutory emphasis on FCIC training sustains demand for authorized training and could expand opportunities if the Commissioner requires additional or state-specific training.
- California Department of Insurance — The Department gets a clearer statutory basis to regulate the occupation and to promulgate implementation rules.
Who Bears the Cost
- Insurers and insurance employers — They must strengthen compliance processes, verify licensure for adjusters and contractors, and potentially adapt to new state competency requirements if the Commissioner adopts them.
- Independent adjusters and small contractors — Obtaining or documenting licensure and FCIC training adds administrative burden and cost, and any future state testing or CE would increase recurring expenses.
- Department of Insurance — If the Commissioner pursues new regulations, the Department will need staff time and resources to write, implement, and enforce rules (an operational cost that may be unfunded).
- Training and testing entities (short-term) — Providers may need to adapt curricula and produce new materials or testing infrastructure if the state requires additional competency standards.
- Agribusinesses that rely on informal adjustment arrangements — Farms and local agents that currently use ad hoc adjusters will need to change contracting practices or absorb higher vendor costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a uniform, federal-based baseline (the FCIC curriculum and testing) that facilitates multi-state operations against California’s interest in imposing state-specific competency or practice standards to protect local producers — a choice that can raise consumer protection but also increase costs and administrative complexity for insurers and adjusters.
On its face AB 2038 is a drafting clean-up, but it also narrows ambiguity in ways that have practical consequences. The single most consequential change is the express preservation of state rulemaking authority to require competency standards beyond the federal FCIC curriculum.
That raises immediate questions about how California rules would interface with the FCIC Standard Reinsurance Agreement and whether state requirements could meaningfully diverge from federal expectations without creating compliance frictions for insurers who operate across states.
Enforcement and scope present additional implementation challenges. The statute’s functional definition of an adjuster sweeps in anyone who investigates, negotiates, or settles claims, but in practice the line between advisory work and adjuster activity can be fuzzy — particularly on farms where owners, managers, or local agents sometimes assist with claims.
Determining when someone has crossed into 'acting as an adjuster' will require regulatory or guidance work. Finally, although the bill authorizes the Commissioner to add competency requirements, it does not fund the Department or set timelines; that leaves open whether new state requirements will materialize and how burdensome they might be if adopted.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.