Hubbard Grain Co. v. Western Grain Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | 36057 |
| Citation | 201 N.W. 568,199 Iowa 1160 |
| Parties | HUBBARD GRAIN COMPANY, Appellee, v. WESTERN GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED APRIL 8, 1925.
Appeal from Cerro Gordo District Court.--M. H. KEPLER, Judge.
ACTION to recover on policies of insurance written by two insurance companies. The Western Grain Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company admitted its liability to a certain amount. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company denied liability for any greater amount than $ 5.53. The amount of the loss was not in dispute. The court found that the Western Grain Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company should pay $ 806.77, and the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, $ 809.54. The latter company appeals.
Affirmed.
Senneff Bliss, Witwer & Senneff, for appellant.
Fitzpatrick Barrett & Barlow, for appellee Hubbard Grain Co.
Sampson & Dillon, for appellee Western Grain Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
It is conceded that the amount of the plaintiff's loss was $ 1,616.31. The plaintiff had insurance on grain which was destroyed under policies in the Western Grain Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company and in the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. The policy of the first named company was in force at the time the policy of the latter company was written. It is the contention of appellant that its policy should cover excess insurance only in case there was other insurance on the property, and that the policy as written did not express the true agreement of the parties, and should be reformed.
The rules regarding the reformation of a written instrument are well established. Reformation will not be decreed except in cases where the proof of mutual mistake or other ground for reformation is clear, satisfactory, convincing, and, as is sometimes said, established beyond a reasonable doubt. Written contracts between competent parties are not to be reformed on slight or insufficient evidence, nor where the evidence is merely in equipoise, nor even where there is a preponderance in favor of the party claiming reformation. The right to the claimed reformation must be established by such clear and convincing proof as satisfies a court of chancery that the written instrument does not express the true written agreement and intention of the parties. See Sioux City Inv. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 190 Iowa 1135, 181 N.W. 446; Heard v. Nancolas, 187 Iowa 1045, 175 N.W. 13.
These rules are academic, and very familiar. Applying them to the record in this case, we concur in the conclusion of the trial court that appellant failed to establish its right to a reformation of its policy of insurance, and that there was no such clear, satisfactory, and convincing proof as would have justified the trial court in reforming said policy as sought by appellant.
The real question at this point is whether the policy of appellant was what is referred to as "concurrent insurance,"--that is to say, that the policy ran concurrently with the policy of the Western Grain Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company,--or whether it was the intention of the parties that the policy should cover only an excess of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial