Flickinger v. Farmers' Mut. Fire & Lightning Ins. Ass'n of Story County, Iowa
| Decision Date | 18 November 1907 |
| Parties | SAMUEL FLICKINGER v. THE FARMERS' MUTUAL FIRE & LIGHTNING INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF STORY COUNTY, IOWA, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Story District Court.--HON. J. R. WHITAKER, Judge.
ACTION in equity to reform a policy of insurance and enforce payment thereunder for a loss. There was a decree for the plaintiff from which defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
E. H Addison, for appellant.
McHenry Mulvaney & Jones, for appellee.
On July 1, 1895, plaintiff procured a policy of insurance on his property for five years in the defendant company. Not long before the expiration of this policy he was solicited to renew it, and was advised when it would expire, and, subsequently, as the result of negotiation between himself and the agent who solicited the renewal, a new policy was issued, which, however, bore the date June 9, 1900, and according to its terms expired at noon on the corresponding date of 1905. The loss for which plaintiff seeks recovery under the policy occurred on the afternoon of June 9, 1905, and therefore after the policy had by its terms expired. The contention for plaintiff is that he was led to believe, by the conduct and representations of defendant's agent, that the new policy would be dated and become operative from and after the expiration of the former policy, and therefore would continue in force until July 1, 1905, and that he accepted and retained it under the belief that it corresponded with his understanding as to the date of its taking effect and its expiration; and he therefore asks that the policy be reformed to correspond to the contract between himself and the agent with reference to the issuance of such policy, and that he be given such relief as he would have been entitled to had the policy corresponded to the agreement.
There can be no question as to the power of a court of equity to reform a written instrument, even though it has been fully executed and delivered, so as to make it correspond in terms with the oral agreement which both parties understood was to be embodied therein, and if the one party is aware of the fact that it does not correspond with the mutual understanding of the parties, and that the other has accepted it as embodying such mutual understanding, then the latter is entitled to have a reformation on the ground of fraud. The only question, then, is whether, under the evidence, the agent, acting for the defendant company in taking the obligation and delivering the...
To continue reading
Request your trial