Thielbar Realties

Fire Insurance ? Misdescription of Property ? Reformation of Policy ? Limitation of Actions ? Waiver and Estoppel. Reformation of Instruments ? Essentials. 1. To warrant reformation of a written instrument for mistake, it must appear that the parties agreed upon a certain contract; that they executed it; that the contract executed was not the one agreed upon; that the variance occurred by mistake; in what the mistake consisted, and that it was mutual. Same ? What Constitutes Mutual Mistake. 2. The mutual mistake for which a written instrument may be reformed must be reciprocal and common to both parties, each alike laboring under the same misconception. Fire Insurance ? Policy ? Misdescription of Property Through Mutual Mistake or Error of Insurer, Reformation of Policy Unnecessary. 3. The authorities seem to hold, on the theory of waiver or estoppel, that where, by mutual mistake of the parties to a fire insurance contract, or through error of the insurer, the policy misdescribes the property intended to be insured, or falsely states the location of it, a reformation of the policy is unnecessary to permit a recovery thereon. Same ? Misdescription of Land on Which Building Located ? Reformation of Policy ? Evidence ? Sufficiency. 4. If reformation of a fire insurance policy was necessary to enable plaintiff to recover for loss sustained (see par. 3), evidence showing that the insurer and the insured intended to insure the building destroyed and correctly to describe its location, known to both though neither knew the correct description but both thought the land was being correctly described in the policy, held sufficient to show that the mistake in the description was mutual and the court properly decreed reformation of the policy in that respect. Same ? Insured not Owner in Fee Simple of Land ? When Insurer Estopped to Assert Invalidity of Policy. 5. Where the agent of an insurer against fire, when drafting the policy, took the description of the land on which the building stood from a lease and was thus advised of the fact that the insured was not the owner in fee simple of the land, the insurer, in an action to recover loss sustained, is estopped to assert the