Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Hilliard

• Decision Date: 15 May 1913
• Citation: 62 So. 585,65 Fla. 443
• Parties: FIDELITY PHENIX FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. HILLIARD et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

62 So. 585

65 Fla. 443

FIDELITY PHENIX FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. HILLIARD et al.

Florida Supreme Court

May 15, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; J. W. Perkins, Judge.

Action by Charlotte Hilliard and others against the Fidelity Phenix Fire Insurance Company of New York. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

It is well settled that when a policy of insurance as issued does not conform to the contract which it purports to evidence and the insured accepts the policy in the belief that it does conform to his contract, a court of equity will reform the instrument; and that after a loss has occurred the reformation of the policy and judgment for the loss may be had in the same suit.

In reforming a policy of insurance, like that of any other written contract, the want of conformity to the agreement of the parties must be occasioned by a mistake which is mutual and common to both parties to the instrument. A mistake on one side may be a ground for rescinding, but not for reforming, the contract. Where the minds of the parties have not met, there is no contract, and hence none to be rectified.

It is also well settled that an insurance policy as issued and accepted is prima facie the contract of the parties; and, in order to have it reformed, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that a different contract was entered into from that which was reduced to writing, and this fact must be proved by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, not alone by a preponderance of the evidence, but he must establish the fact by such evidence as to show conclusively that a mistake had been made, that such mistake was mutual to both parties, and to satisfy the court of such mistake beyond a reasonable doubt.

COUNSEL Rufus M. Robbins, of Titusville, for appellant.

John E Hartridge, of Jacksonville, and F. L. Hemmings, of Ft Pierce, for appellees.

OPINION

TAYLOR J.

The appellees, as complainants below, filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of St. Lucie county against the appellant, as defendant below, subsequent to the destruction by fire of the property alleged to be insured for reformation of a policy of fire insurance made by the defendant below payable to Charlotte Hilliard alone, covering a saw and planing mill and other machinery and a building in which it was located, and the lumber to be cut and stored on the land on which it was located; the reformation sought by the bill was, in short, that said policy be made payable to Charlotte Hilliard and the Malsby Company as their interests might appear. The bill alleging that all of said sawmill and planing machinery, engine, and boiler were purchased by Charlotte Hilliard from said Malsby Company, the latter retaining the title thereto until it was fully paid for, and that the greater part of the purchase price therefor was still unpaid. The defendant answered the bill fully denying that there was any mutual mistake made in writing the said policy as alleged but affirming that said policy was written, executed, and delivered in the terms in which it was applied for by the said Charlotte Hilliard. That said policy was void by its express terms because the said Charlotte Hilliard was not the sole and unconditional owner of the property insured thereby, nor was she the owner of the land on which it was situated. And that said policy had been recalled and...