OneBeacon America Insurance Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of
Illinois case brief summary
465 F.3d 38 (2006)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff settled a personal injury suit on behalf of its insured, the lessee of a vehicle from defendants' insured. Plaintiff sought reimbursement under defendants' policy. Defendants conceded that the policy could be read to provide coverage, so they focused on their claim to reform the policy to match the parties' intent that it only covered lessees who specifically applied for, were approved for, and paid for coverage under defendants' policy. Defendants also argued that there was no public policy justification for refusing to reform the policy to conform to the parties' intent.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the district court's summary judgment for plaintiff. The district court was directed to enter summary judgment for defendants, providing for reformation of the policy consistent with the court's ruling.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
465 F.3d 38 (2006)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff insurer sought to recover
under a motor vehicle liability policy that defendant insurers had
issued to a vehicle leasing agency. Citing defendants' policy,
plaintiff sought reimbursement of the policy's limit. Defendants
argued mutual mistake and asked to have the policy reformed. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused to reform
the policy and ordered defendants to pay. Defendants appealed.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff settled a personal injury suit on behalf of its insured, the lessee of a vehicle from defendants' insured. Plaintiff sought reimbursement under defendants' policy. Defendants conceded that the policy could be read to provide coverage, so they focused on their claim to reform the policy to match the parties' intent that it only covered lessees who specifically applied for, were approved for, and paid for coverage under defendants' policy. Defendants also argued that there was no public policy justification for refusing to reform the policy to conform to the parties' intent.
DISCUSSION
- The reviewing court agreed.
- Mutual mistakes justifying contract reformation could result simply from inattention, and such was the mistake urged by defendants.
- The evidence, including the lease agreement and the course of conduct, was compelling that the insured/leasing agency intended that its own insurance coverage for a particular vehicle would terminate once the vehicle was leased, and defendants' coverage applied only if the lessee specifically opted for it.
- Defendants met their burden to provide full, clear, and decisive proof of mistake, and there were no equitable barriers to reformation.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the district court's summary judgment for plaintiff. The district court was directed to enter summary judgment for defendants, providing for reformation of the policy consistent with the court's ruling.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment