## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2085 P R OT EC T I VE L IF E I NS URANC E C OMPAN Y, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M EG AN H ANSE N, D ef endant-Appellant, v. B &K E NTERPRI ZE S, D efend a nt-A pp ellee, an d R O BERTK . S TEUE R, as A ssignee of B& K Enter pri zes , Interv eno r-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 1:0 8-cv-00 31 2-WCG

—Wi ll iam C. G ri esb ach, Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 29, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 19, 20112 N o. 10

- 2085 Befo re B AUER, W OO D a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . U p on th e d e a th of R ichard M cDo na l d, Pro te ct i ve Li f e I ns ur an ce C o m pan y ( “Pro tect i ve”) fi l ed thi s inter ple ader acti on, nam i ng bo th M eg an Ha n s e n a n d B &K E n t e r p r i z e s ( “ B &K” ) a s d e fe nd a n t s . H a n s e n a n d B &Kfi l e d c r o s s mo t i o n s f o rs u mm ary j u d gm ent, ea ch cl ai m i ng to be the b enefi ci ar y o f M cDonal d’s one- m i l l i on- dol l ar l i fe i nsurance p ol i cy. The dis tr i ct c ourt g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r o fB&K , a nd Hans ena ppea le d. W e ha ve r ev i ewe d the dis t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n de n o v o , c o ns t r uinga l lf a cts an d r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s i n Hans en ’ s f avor. F i ndi ng n o e r r o r, w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND B& K i s a W i sco nsi n l i m i ted l i abil i ty com pany ( “LL C”) that de ve lop ed , bui l t, o w ned, and oper ate d a ga s s tat i on an d c o nv en i en ce st o r e i n Mani to woc, W i sc o ns i n. M cDo nal d w as a f ounding m em bero fthe LL C, and he w as al so th e m an ag era nd da y - to
- dayope rato ro fthe s ta ti o n. B ec au se len d er s c on sid er ed M c D on ald to be a “k ey m an ,” B& K w as abl e to fi na nc e its oper at i o ns b y pur ch as i ng a o ne - m i l l i o n- do l l arl i fe i ns ur an ce po l i cyo n McDon al d ’s l i fe a nd then ass i gni ng i ts i nter esti n the i nsurance proceeds as secur i ty f orvar i ous l oans. I n 2 00 7, M c Do n a l d ’ s p e r s o n a ll i fe wa s i n d i s a r r a y . He was in th e m i dsto fa di vo r ce whi l e l i vingi n a mot ela nd d at in g H an se n, a frien d of h is e x -w i f e’s d au gh te r. H is profess i onall i fe wa s not f ar i ng m uch bett er . B& K wasN o. 10

- 2085 3 oper ating ata l oss and m em b ers o fthe LL C suspected th atM cDo na l d was mis m an ag i ngthe c o m pan y. Co nfi rm ing the m em bers’ su sp ici ons , an a u d it ofB& K ’s boo ks re veal ed that M cDonal d app ro pri ate d $48, 35 1.8 5 ofB&K’ s fun ds , s o me o fwh i c h wa s u s e d t o p ur chase item s for H an sen and H an sen ’s brother. Al th o u g h B &K q u i c k l y r e mo v e d Mc Do n a l d as t he m an ag ero fthe s ta ti o n, hi s ac ti o ns fi na nc i al l y r ui ne d the com pany. The m em ber s ther ef or e hi re d M i chaelC u lli gan to wi nd up B& K a nd l i qui dat e i ts as se ts , i ncl udi ng the l i fe i ns ur an ce po l i cy . At the t i m e o fl i qui dat i o n, the po l i cyha d b ee n pai d th r o ugh Mar ch1 , 2 00 8, a nd a l th o ug h i th a d a c a s h s u r r e n d e rv a l u e o f$ 2 1 7
. 5 0 , B &K d e c id ed to d isp os e o f th e p olic y b y s im p ly let tin g it l apse. H owever, unbeknown st to B& K , Cu l l i gan s i gned and subm i tted a change o fo w ners hi p f or m to Pro tect i ve inJan u ar y 2 00 8, e s se n tia lly as kin g it t o im m ed iat ely tr ansfe ro wne r s hi p o fthe p o l i c y fr o m B&K t o McD o na l d. Subsequentl y, wh i l e be l i eving hi m sel fto be the ne w ow n er ofthe pol i cy, M cDonal d si gned and subm i tte d a c ha ng e o fb enefi ci ary f o r m i n o r dert o c ha ng e th e b en efic iar y of t h e p olic y fro m B & K to H an se n . M c D on ald then co m m i tte d sui ci de. A ccor ding to Pro tecti ve’ s t er m s a nd r equi re m ents, th e ow ne r ofa l ife insu ran ce p oli cy m a y trans fer ow ne rshi p ofth e pol i cy by si gni ng and subm i tting a change ofo w ners hi p f or m . H owever, w h i l e a n LL C m ay su b m it th is for m w ith on ly on e o ffice r’s sign at u re , a cor po rati on m ust s ubm i t thi s for m with a t l eas t tw o cor pora te officers ’ si gnatur es. A l though B& K was unqu est i onabl y an LL C, the own er nam ed on t h e p ol i cy4 N o. 10

- 2085

was i nc o r r ec tly r ec o r ded as “B &K Inc . ” Thus , f o l l o wi ng i ts own pol i ci es, wh en Pr ote cti ve re cei ved the change of o wner sh i p f o r m s i g ne d o nl y by C ull i g an, i t se ntthe f or m bac k t o Cu l l i gan a nd expl ai ne d t h at h e would nee d to o bt ain the s i g na tu r e o fa no th erc o r po r at e o ff ice ra nd r es ubmi t th e form in o r dert o t r an sfero wner sh i p o fthe p o l i c y . F o ru n k n o wnr e a s o n s , C u l l i g a n n e v e r di d s o . As a re sul t, Pro tect i ve never changed the own er ofthe pol i cy. Pro tect i ve’ s t er m s a nd r equi re m ents al so provi ded th at only th e o w ne r of a p oli cy can c ha ng e t he ben efi ciary oft h e pol i cy. Thus, M cDonal d’s att em pt to change th e b en efic ia r y fr om B & K to H an se n is on ly eff ec tiv e if M cDonal d was the own er of the l i fe i nsuranc e p olic y wh e n h e s u b mi t t e d th e c h a n g e o fb e n e fi c i a r y f o r m. B& K is c u rrentl y in re cei ver shi p. The l i quidati on o f B& K ’ s a sse ts did notge nera te en ou gh pro ceeds to pay i ts secur ed deb t, an d a l lm em ber s o fthe LL C w er e there

f o r e co m pel l ed to m ak e su bs ta nt i al cash co nt r ibut i o ns to h elp p ay off th e d eb t. A lth o u gh M c D on ald w as st ill a m em bero fthe LL C and o w ned th e lar ge st port i on o f the LLC atthe ti m e o fl i quidati on, he r efused to m ake an y cash cont ributions , t he reby forcing othe r m em bers to cove r hi s s hare

. The r eco rd r eve al s that no n -m em ber c re d ito rs cu rr e n tly h av e c laim s t ot alin g a p p ro x im at ely $8 3,0 00 , w h ile m em b er s h av e c laim s t ot alin g a p p ro x im ate l y $ 400, 000. U p o n H a n s e n ’ s a n d B &K ’ s c r o s s mo t i o n s f o rs u mm ar y jud gm en t, th e d ist ric t c ou rten te re d j u d gm en t in fav or of B & K . H an se n a p p ea led , claim in g t h at M c D on ald ow n ed t h e p olic y a n d th at H an se n is th e rig h tfu l be n efici ar y o fthe pol i cy.N o. 10

- 2085 5 I I . DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e n o v o , cons tru ing allf acts and reason able infere n c es in H an se n ’s fa vo r. Wi n s l ey v. Co okCo u n ty, 56 3 F.3 d 59 8, 60 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); M i l wauke e M e t ro. Sew e rage D i s t
. v. A m . Int e r n. Sp e ci al ty L i ne s Ins . Co. , 59 8 F
. 3d 311, 31 6- 1 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. S um m ar y j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro fB &K i s pro per onl y i fthe ple adings, di sco ver y m ate ri al s, di scl o su r es , a nd a ffi dav i ts de m o ns tr at e no g enui ne i ss ue ofm ate ria l fac t s uch that B& K i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . Fe d R. Civ. P. 56 ( c)
. Both par ti es agr ee that w e s houl d app l y W i sco nsi n sta te l aw bec ause a federa lco urt si tting i n div er si ty ap pli es the s ubstanti ve law of th e s ta t e i n w h ich it is sit tin g. See, e . g., Alls tate Ins
. Co
. v. Keca , 368 F.3d 793 , 796 (7th C ir. 2004).

A . B & K Is th e O w n er a n d Be n efic iar y o fth e L ife I nsu r ance Pol i cy Altho ugh P r o te ct i ve’ s r ec o r ds i ndi ca te tha t B& K i s th e o wne ra nd b e ne fi c i a r y o fthe p o l i c y, Ha ns e n c o nt e nd s th ati n J an ua r y 2 00 8 M cDo na l d b ec ame the o wnero fthe pol i cy and H ansen b ecam e the be ne fici ar y o fthe pol i cy. S he r e a c he s thi s c o nc l us i o n b y s e t t i ngf o r th a s e ri es ofi nter l ock i ng ar gum ents, w h ich pro ceed as f ol l ows: ( 1) B& K an d P ro tect i ve m ade a m utual m i sta ke w hen th e y n a me d “ B &K I n c ” th e o wne ro fth e p o l i c y, a n d we shoul d refor m the p olic y to re ad “B& K LLC ” in or der to re fl ect the c ontr acting part i es’ tr ue i ntenti ons; ( 2 ) a ft e r r e f o r min g th e p o l i c y t o r e a d “ B & K L L C , ” we sh o ul d fi nd tha t Cul l i g ant r an sfer red o wner sh i p o fthe6 N o. 10

- 2085 pol i cy fro m B& K to M c D on ald beca use a n LL C m ay tr ansfero w ners hi p ofi ts pol i cy by subm i tting a ch an ge of ow n e r s h ip f orm that bears on ly one officer’s si gnatur e; and ( 3) after fi nd i ng that M cDonal d ow ned th e po li cy, w e m us t find that H an sen i s the ben efic iary o fthe pol i cyb ec au se M cDo na l d, a s th e o wnero fthe pol i cy, had the author i ty to nam e Hansen as the ne w benefi ci ar y. A l ternati vely, sho uld we rej ect thi s s er i es of ar gum en ts , H anse n c o nt en ds th atM cDo na l d o wned the po l icy be ca us e B& K and M cDo na l d f o r m ed a bindi ng contr act to tr ansfero w ners hi p ofthe pol i cy, and H ansen can enfor ce thi s co ntra ct b ecause she is an i ntended th i r d- par tyb en efi ci ary . W e addr es s each ofthe se a r g um en ts i n tur n. H ansen b egins herse ri es of i nter l ock i ng ar gum ents by ass er ti ng tha t B& K and Pro tect i ve m ade a m utual m i st ak e when th ey na m ed “B&K Inc ” th e o wner of th e pol i cy and that we sho uld r ef or m the cont ra c t to re ad “B & K LLC ” in or der t o re fl ect the t rue i ntenti on o f B& K and Pro tect i ve. U nd erW isco nsi n l aw , a contr act m ay be r ef or m ed “wh en the wri ti ng tha t e vi dences o r em bodi es an ag re em ent in w hol e o r i n p ar t f ai l s t o e x p r e s s th e a g r e e me n tb e c a u s e o fa mi s t a k e a s t o the conte nts o r effect ofthe w ri ti ng. ” A d d i s o n In s . C o . v . Ko rs mo , 694 N
. W
. 2d, ¶ 1 1 ( W i s. Ct. A pp . 20 05) ( ci ti ng V a n d e n b erg v. Cont ’ l Ins . Co. , 62 8 N
. W
. 2d 876, 82 9 ( W i s. 20 01) )
. Establ i shi ng the exi ste nce o fa m utual m ist ak e in an i nsurance contr act, h ow ev er, r equi re s l ess pro ofthan i s nee ded for an y o t h er co n tr ac t. Je wel l v. U ni t e d F i re& Cas
. Co. , 13 1 N
. W
. 2d 276, 28 0 ( W i s. 1 96 4)
. Put tingo urc o ncer ns with s tandi ng as i de, we w i l las sum e without de-N o. 10

- 2085 7

c i di ngtha tr e f o r mi ngthe con t r a c tt o r e a d “ B&K LL C” is prop er. H an se n n extc o nt en ds th ato nc e we r efo r m the contr act to re ad “B& K LLC , ” we m ust fi nd thatCull i gan tr ansfer re d ow ners h ip ofthe pol i cy to M cDonal d. For supp or t, H ansen r eli es upon K athl een Br i tto n, the vi ce pres id en t in char ge ofPro tect i ve’ s l i fe insurance p olic ies , w h o t es tifie d t h at if B & K h ad be en p ro p er ly list ed as an L L C , th en C u lliga n ’s s ign at u re alon e w ou ld have sat i sfied Pro tect i ve’ s t er m s a nd r equi re m ents. I n effect, ther ef ore, H ansen ur ges us t o fi nd that Mc Do n a l d wa s th e o wn e ro ft h e p o l i c y b e c a u s e B &K s houl d have been l i ste d as a n LL C and Prot ecti ve ther ef or e s houl d ha ve acc ep ted Cu lli gan ’s si gn atu re as suffi cientto transfer th e p oli cy. Th e prob lem w ith H an sen ’s ar gum ent i s that we have no a uthor i ty to do so

. W e be gi n by noting tha t we cannotpre sum e t o know wh a tP r o t e c t i v e wo u l d o rs h o u l d h a v e do ne i fB &K h a d b e e n l i s t e d a s a n LL C
. A l th o u g h P r o t e c t i v e ’ s t e r ms an d r equi r ement s wer e cl ea r, there i s no th i ngi n the record t o sugg est th at tran sferri ng ow ne rship of this pol i cy w ou l d have be en a si m ple m i ni ste ri alta sk. H an sen’s re l i ance upon Bri tto n’s te sti m ony i s m i spl aced bec au se althou gh Britt o n te stifi ed abou t Protec tive’s gener al bu si ness pract i ces and a b o ut wh e ther Cul l i g an ’ s si g natu r e sa ti sfi ed Pr o te ct i ve ’ s te r m s an d re quir em ents f orLLC s, sh e neverte sti fi ed that Pro tecti ve would h av e ac tu al l y t r an sfer r ed o wner sh i p o fthe pol i cy fro m B& K to M cDonal d i fB & K had bee n l i ste d as anLLC. The r e i s i n f ac t no th i ngi n the r ec o r d t o pr ev en t8 N o. 10

- 2085 us fro m as sum i ng tha t instea d oftr ansfer ring the pol i cy, P rotec ti ve w oul d have co m m enced an invest i gat i on o r othe rwis e r efused to tr ansfero w ners hi p ofthe pol i cy. H ansen’ s a ssum pt ion about wh at w oul d have happened i s thus nothingmor e th ans pec ul at i o n, a nd we ha ve no reason to beli eve th at H an sen ’s assu m p tion is m ore cor re ct than any othe r ass um pti ons that coul d be m ade. N eve rthel ess , ev en if w e co uld s om ehow d i sco ver w hat Pr ote c tiv e w oul d have done had B& K bee n nam ed an L L C , th e p r o p e r fo c u s h er e is n oton w h at sh ou ld ha v e ha pp e ne d b ut r a the r o n wha t a c t ua l l y hap pe ne d. H ansen a rgues that be cause Pro tective sho uld have accepte d C ull i gan’ s s i gnatur e a s suffi ci ent t o tr ansfer ow n er sh i p ofthe pol i cy, we m ust fi nd thatB& K tr ansf er re d the p o l i c y t o McD o na l d. T hi s i s n o ta l e g a ltheor y, an d “ whats ho uld ha ve ha ppen ed” i s no t a g o ve r ni ng st an d ar d . In st ea d , w h at m at te rs h er e is w h at ac tu ally h a p p e n e d : C u l l i g a n s i g n e d a c h a n g e o fo wne r s h i p fo r m, P r o te ct i v e r ej e c t e d i te i th e rr i g h t l y o rwr o n g l y ( we w i l lpre sum e wrongl y) and sentthe f or m bac k t o Cul l i g an, Cul l i g anne ve rmai l ed th e f o r m b ac k, a nd Pr o te ct i ve ne ve r ch an g ed th e o wner o f th e po l i cy . A bsent so m e vi ab l e l eg althe o r y, we ca nn ot si m pl y unwi nd th is seri es of events and de clare H an sen the be ne fi ciary ofthe pol i cy. To the e xt en t H an se n a r g ue s th atwe ca n r efo r m the co nt r ac t tw ice, f i r stt o make B&K LLC the o wnera nd then t o make M cDo na l d the o wner, we r ej ec t th i s ar g um ent. A l though r ef or m ati on m ay change “B& K Inc” to “B& K L L C,” i t ce rt ai nl y doe s no t chang e the o w nerN o. 10

- 2085 9 fro m “B & K ” t o “ M c D on ald .” R efo rm at ion is an eq u ita b le re m edy thati s a vai l abl e o nl y when a docum ent fa ils to fully o r accura tel y r efl ect th e contr acting par ti es’ actual a g r e e men te i the rb e c a us e the c o nt r a c t i ng p a r t i e s ma de a m utual m i sta ke or b ecause o ne par ty m ade a m i sta ke w h ile th e o th er p ar ty co m m itt ed a fra u d

. Se e, e . g. , Ho em v. Tow n of Frank li n , 7 74 N. W
. 2d 4 7 5 , ¶ 1 5 ( W i s . Ct
. App
. 20 09 ); Ko rs mo , 694 N
. W
. 2d at ¶ 9 ( sta ti ng tha t “ re f or m ati on i s a n equi tabl e r em edy . Ifthe ci rcui t co urt deter m i nes [th at ] .
. . th e t er m s o f an ins u ra n c e c on t ra c t a re n otfu lly or accu rately set forth, it m ay, at its discretion, ref orm the c ontr act to express the parti es’ actual i ntent”)
. H er e, B& K and Pro tect i ve i ntended to cre ate a contr act that na m ed B& K a s b o t h th e ow ne r and ben efi ciary of a li fe in su rance pol i cy on M cDonal d’s l i fe. They s ucceeded i n doi ng so . W hi l e the co ntra cti ng par ti es m i ght ha ve m ade a mis ta k e i n c ha r ac te r i zingB&K a s a co r po r at i o n, H ansen doe s no t a l l ege thatthe contr acting par ti es mad e a ny ad dit i o na lmi s t a k e s o rtha to ne p a r t y ma de a m istake w hile the oth er pa r t y com m itted a frau d

. Th ere i s thus nothi ng l eft t o re f or m . Because H ansen p oin ts to no l ega ltheo ryunde r w hi ch w e co uld fi nd that M cDon ald w as the o w ner ofthe pol i cy, H ansen’ s s er i es of in te rloc kin g a rg u m en ts fail. A t o ra lar gum ent, however, H anse n ar gued that eve n i fwe r ej ec t he rs er i es o fargum en ts, we sh o ul d s ti l lfi nd that M cDonal d w as t h e o w ner ofthe pol i cy because B& K and M cDonal d f or m ed a bi nd i ng co ntra ct t o tr ansfer ow ners hi p ofthe pol i cy, and H ansen c an enf or ce this c on tr ac t b ec au se sh e w as an int en d ed th ird -p ar ty be n eficiary. W e d isagree. First, assu m ing the c h a n g e of ow ne r-10 N o. 10

- 2085 shi p f or m was a c ontr act, it was a c ontr act between B& K and Pr ote cti ve. M cDonal d was not a party to th is contr act because he had no cont ro lo verthe conte nts ofthe f or m , wh et h er B& K would subm i t the f or m , o r w hetherPro tect i ve w oul d find the f or m suffi ci ent. Because M cDonal d w as not a p ar ty to thi s co ntra ct, H an se n h as n o a u th or ity to en for c e i t . Se c on d , th er e is no e vi denc e in t h e r eco rd pro vi ng tha t Hansen i s a n i ntended th ird

- partybene fi ci ar y. In W i sco nsi n, “A p erson m ay en force a contra ct as th ird-p arty ben efi ciary if th e c on tr ac t in d ica te s t h at h e o r sh e w as eith er sp ec ifical l y intended by the co ntra cti ng partie s to benefi t fro m the c ontr act o r i s a m em bero fthe cl ass the parti es i nt en d ed to bene fi t. ” M i l wauke eAr e a Te ch ni ca l Col l

. v. Fro nteir A dju sters of M ilw a uk ee, 75 2 N
. W
. 2d 396, ¶ 20 ( W i s. C t
. A p p . 200 8). H er e, ev en if th e c h an ge of ow n er sh ip f o r m wa s a c o nt r a c t b e t we e n B&K and M c Do na l d, i t m ade n o m en ti on o fH ansen o r any o therbene fi ci ar y; i t was mer ely a cont ractt o t r an sfero wner sh i p o fthe pol i cy. I t i s thus i m possibl e t o concl ud e th at H ansen w as an i ntended thi rd- partyb en efi ci ar y who i s e nti tl ed to enf or ce the co ntra ct. A cc o r di ng l y, f o rthe r ea so ns s etf o r thabo ve , we fi nd th atB&K i s bo ththe o w ne r an d the b en efi ci ary o fthe l i fe insurance pol i cy. W e there f or e a ffi rm sum m ary j ud gm ent in f avo r ofB& K
. Giv en o ur ho l ding, we need not add re ss B& K ’ s a rgum ents that M cDonal d d id notgi ve adequate c on sidera ti on a nd thatCull i gan di d not hav e author i ty to tr ansferthe pol i cy.N o. 10

- 2085 11 B . T h e E q u i t i e s F a v o rB &K Th e di s t r i c t c o ur t he l d tha t e v e n i f Ha ns e n had sat i sfi ed al l el em ents of re f or m ati on, re for m atio n w ou ld n eve rthel ess be i m properbec ause the e quit i es do not l i e in H ansen’ s f avo r. W e a gr ee. B& K purchase d a o ne- m i l l i on- dol l arl i fe insurance pol i cy on M cDonal d’s l i fe as a w ay to fi nance i ts busi ness. I t pai d the pr emi um o n thi s poli cy for f o ury ea r s. M ea nwhi l e, M cDo na l d was a dish ones t empl o y ee who e xplo i ted hi s pos i ti on in the c om pany and m i sapprop riated B& K ’s fu n d s. I n an effort to sw ind le even m ore fro m B & K , M c D on ald at te m p te d to tra n sfe r ow n er sh ip ofthe pol i cy fro m B& K to h im se lf so thathe c oul d m ake H an s e n the b e ne fi c i a r y o fthe p o l i c y b e f o r e h e k i l l ed hi m sel f

. A l though Hansen denie s any kno w l edge o f M cDo na l d’ s pl anne d s ui ci de, the e vi den ce o n the record strongly su ggests otherw ise. A nd w hile cred itors w ho invest ed i n B& K r em ain u n p aid, H ansen s eek s a wi ndf al li n the am ou nt o fo ne mil l i o n do l l ar s fr o m the ver y pol i cy w hi ch w as pu rch ased in or der t o prot ect the c re dit or s. S he does so despi te the f act that she ne ver ha d a ny c o nne ct i o n wi thB&K ’ s b usi ne ss , de spi te the f ac t tha t ne i th erM cDo na l d no rHans ene ve rpa i d a ny i nsurance prem i u m o n the pol i cy, and despit e the f act th at h er rela tio n sh ip w it h M c D on ald w as ap p ar en tly ov e r a t t h e tim e of his d eath

. Given the record before us , the r e i s no do ubttha t th e eq uiti es f av o rB&K a nd i ts c r edi to r s. W e th er efo r e affi r m s um m ar y j udg m en t infav or of B & K
. Se e, e . g. , R ich ar ds v. La nd St arGrp. , Inc ., 593 N
. W
. 2d 103, 11 1 ( W i s. Ct. A pp . 1 99 9) ( hol ding that12 N o. 10

- 2085

re f or m ati on i s a n equi table r em edy thati s m eant to gr an t re lief to p a r t i e s on ly w h en th e e q u itie s lie in th eir favor).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON B& K i s the o w ner and benefi ci ar y o fthe l i fe insurance pol i cy becau se it nevertr ansfer re d ow ners hi p ofi ts p olic y t o M c D on ald . Re for m at ion c a n n otch an ge th is re sul t, and e ven i fi t co uld, r ef or m ati on would be i m pr o perb ec au se the e qui ti es f av or B&K , no t H an se n. W e there f or e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

1- 19- 11