Plaintiff sues on a policy issued by defendant, providing safe burglary coverage "Inside or outside of any chest in Safe No. 1". Defendant counterclaims: (1) for reformation, alleging the intended coverage was only "Inside of chest in Safe No. 1", and that the misdescription of the coverage was occasioned by a scrivener's mistake; and (2) for an increased premium if reformation is denied under the first counterclaim.
Plaintiff...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
