# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 17 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Sm it h F lo or in g, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Pen ns y lv an ia Lum

be rm en s M ut ua l In su ran ce Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 13 , 20 12
Fil ed : Ap ri 2 6, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, BEAM, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Sm it h Fl oo rin g, In c. ("S m it h Fl oo rin g" ) ob ta in ed co m m er c i a l pr op ert y

in su ran ce co ve rag e fro m Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s Mu tu al In su ran ce Co m pa ny ("P en ns y lv an ia Lum

be r m en s" ) fro m 20 04 to 20 09

. Each y ear, Pen ns y lv an ia

Lum be rm en s is su ed Sm it h Fl oo rin g a ne w an nu al po li cy wit h en do rs em en ts th at

ex cl ude d ce rt ai n pr ope rt

y fr om co ve ra ge

. An en do rs em en t ex cl ud in g cert ai n bui ldi ngs

fro m co ve rag e was o mi t t ed fro m th e 20 07 –0 8 po li cy an d ag ai n fro m th e 20 08 –0 9p o li cy

. One of th os e bu il di ng s, kn own as th e Pi ne W areh ou se , su bs eq ue n t l y

co ll ap se d, an d Sm it h Fl oo rin g su bm it te d a c l a im fo r th e lo ss , whi ch Pen ns y lv an ia

Lum be rm en s de ni ed

. Sm it h Fl oo rin g f il ed su it

, al le gi ng br each of co nt ract an d

se ek in g a de cl arat or y jud gm en t as to th e te rm s of th e in su ran ce po li cy

. Pen ns y lv an ia

Lum be rm en s rem ov ed th e c a s e t o th e di st ric t co ur t an d co un te rcl ai m ed fo r 1

refo rm at io n of th e in su ran ce po li cy

. The co ur t su bm it te d th e c la im s fo r br each of

co nt ract an d refo rm at io n to a jury, whi c h r e t u r n e d a ve rd ic t fo r Sm it h Fl oo rin g on
bo th cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's m ot io n to al te r

th e jury ve rd ic t, bu t it th en ru le d th at it wou ld tre at th e jury's ve rd ic t as m erel y
ad vi so ry un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 39

. The co ur t th en su bs ti tu te d it s own

fin di ng s of fact an d co nc lu si on s of la w fo r th e jury's ve rd ic t. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at

cl ear, co ge nt

, an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce sh owe d th at th e in su ran ce po li cy di d no t

accu rat el y se t fo rth th e ag reem en t of th e p a r t i e s. The co ur t refo rm ed th e po li cy to

refl ect th at t h e P i n e Wareh ou se was no t co ve red

. Fi nd in g no rev ers ib le erro r, we

affi rm

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

Sm it h Fl oo rin g m a n u f

a ct ur es an d se ll s ha rd woo d flo or in g. It op erat es a

m an uf act ur in g faci li ty ("Lo cat io n 1" ) ne ar Mo un ta in View, Mi ss ou ri, whi ch in cl ud es

nu m ero us bu il di ng s. One of th e bu il di ng s at Loc at io n 1 is k n o w n as th e Pi ne

W areh ou se

. 2

Sm it h Fl oo rin g us ed St ev en You ng (" Y o u n g ") of W au sa u Si gn at ur e Age nc y ("Wasa u" ) as it s in su ran ce ag en t. You ng so ug ht an d ob ta in ed in su ran ce fo r Sm it h

Fl oo rin g fro m Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s th ro ug h W oo du s K. Hum ph rey an d

The Hon or ab le Dean W hi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r t h e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

In so m e d oc um en ts , th e Pi ne W areh ou se is refe rred to as t he Sto rag e Sh ed

. 2

-2

-Co m

pa ny, In c. ("Wo od us Hum ph rey"), th e is su in g ag en t of Pen ns y lv an ia

Lu m be rm en s. Each y ear, Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s is su ed Sm it h Fl oo rin g a ne w

an nu al po li cy th at be cam e effe ct iv e on Mar ch 1. Each an nu al po li cy was is su ed wit h

an en do rs em en t ti tl ed "ADDITIONAL PROPERTY NOT COVERED." The po li ci es

fo r y ears 20 04 –0 5, 20 05 –0 6, an d 20 06 –0 7 in cl ud ed an en do rs em en t th at e xc lu de d

fro m co ve rag e si x bu il di ng s at Loc at io n 1, in cl ud in g th e Pi ne W areh ou se

. Howev er,

th e 20 07 –0 8 an d 20 08 –0 9 po li ci es di d no t li st an en do rs em en t ex cl ud in g bu il di ng s

at Loca ti on 1.

In Ja nu ary 20 09

, th e Pi ne W areh ou se co ll ap se d un de r th e weig ht of sl eet an d

ic e. Sm it h Fl oo rin g su bm it te d a cl ai m fo r th e lo ss , whi ch Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s
de ni ed

. Sm it h Fl oo rin g fil ed su it ag ai ns t Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s in Mi ss ou ri st at e

co ur t, al le gi ng br each of co nt ract an d se ek in g a de cl arat or y jud gm en t as to th e te rm s

of th e in su ran ce po li cy . P en ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s rem ov ed th e cas e to th e d is tri ct

co ur t an d c ou nt ercl ai m ed for refo rm at io n o f th e p ol ic y

.

Pen ns y lv an ia Lum

be rm en s fil ed a m ot io n req ue st in g a be nc h t r ia l on it s

co un te rcl ai m fo r refo rm at io n. The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d se t th e cas e fo r a jury

tri al on al l is su es

. The cas e wen t to tri al

, an d a jury fo un d in fav or of Sm it h Fl oo rin g

on it s br each -o f-co nt ra c t c l ai m , as well as on Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's

co un te rcl ai m fo r refo rm at io n. The co ur t is su ed an or de r an d jud gm en t co ns is te nt wit h

th e jury award to Sm it h Fl oo rin g of $3 00 ,00 0 in da m ag es

. Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s

fil ed a m ot io n to al te r th e jury ve rd ic t an d a m ot io n fo r po st -v erd ic t jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's m ot io n to al te r

th e ju r y v e rd ic t, fin di ng th at a $1 00 ,00 0 de du ct ib le an d a $1 0,0 00 li m it on de br is

rem ov al sh ou ld be ap pl ie d t o re du ce t he jury's damage awar d t o $ 17 0,0 00

.

Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's m ot io n

fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. The co ur t fo un d th at it ha d erre d in de nyin g

Pen ns y lv an ia Lum

be rm en s's pr et ria l m ot io n req ue st in g a be nc h tri al on it s

-3

-co un te rcl ai m fo r refo rm at io n. The co ur t ru le d th at it wou ld tre at th e jury's ve rd ic t as

m erel y ad vi so ry un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci v i l P ro ced ur e 39

. The co ur t fo un d th at a

ne w tri al wo u l d b e u nn eces sa ry an d in effi ci en t, as th e co ur t ha d al read y he ard th e

ev id en ce. It va cat ed th e jury's ve rd ic t and

, in acco rd an ce with Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l

Pro ced ur e 52 (a), th e co ur t m ad e it s own fin di ng s of fact an d co nc lu si on s o f l aw,
whi ch it su bs ti tu te d fo r th e jury's ve rd ic t. The co ur t fo un d th at c l ear, co ge nt

, an d

co nv in ci ng ev id en ce de m on st rat ed th at th e in su ran ce po li cy di d no t a c c u r a t el y se t

fo rth th e ag reem en t of th e pa rti es , an d it refo rm ed th e 20 08 –0 9 po li cy to refl ect th at

th e Pi ne W areh ou se was no t co ve red un de r th e p ol ic y . The d is tri ct co ur t t he n ru le d

th at , as a co ns eq ue nc e, Sm it h F lo or in g's bre ach -o f-co nt ract cla im fai le d.

Sm it h Fl oo rin g ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t ' s gr an ts of (1 ) Pen ns y lv an ia

Lum be rm en s's m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on it s br each -o f-co nt ract cl ai m

an d (2 ) Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's m ot io n to red uc e th e jury's da m ag e award by

ap pl y in g a $1 00 ,00 0 d ed uc ti bl e an d a $1 0,0 00 li m it on de br is rem ov al

. 3

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Co mmon Iss ue s
"'Whet he r a pa rty ha s a rig ht to tri al by jury in fed eral co ur t is a qu es ti on of la w

su bjec t to de no vo rev ie w.'" Ta yl or Co rp

. v. Fou r Se as on s Gre et in gs
, LLC

, 40 3 F.3 d

95 8, 96 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng In d. Lu mbe rme ns Mut

. In s. Co

. v. Ti mbe rl an d

Pal le t & Lu mbe r C

o. , 19 5 F.3 d 36 8, 37 4 (8 th Cir .19 99 )). The Sev en th Am en dm en t

pr ov id es , in pe r t i n e n t pa rt, th at "[i ]n Su it s at co m m on la w, whe re th e va lu e in

co nt ro ve rs y sh al l ex ceed twen ty do ll ars , th e rig ht of tri al by jury sh al l be pr es erv ed ."

U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VII. Bec au se th e Sev en th Am en dm en t ap pl ie s on ly to "[s ]uit s at

co m m on law," id

. , no t ev ery cau se of a ct io n i m pl ic at es th is rig ht

.

Bec a u s e we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's 3

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, we do no t reac h th e is su e of whe th er th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in red uc in g th e jury ve rd ic t by fin d i n g a $1 00 ,00 0 de du ct ib le

an d a $1 0,0 00 li m it on de br is rem ov al da m ag es

.

-4

-"[S ]uit s fo r da m ag es fo r br each of co nt ract

. . . were su it s at co m m on la w wit h

th e is su es of t he m ak in g o f th e co nt ract an d i ts bre ach to be de ci de d by a jury . . . ."

Atl as Roo fi ng Co ., In c. v. Occu

pa ti on al Sa fe ty & Heal th Revi ew Co mm'n , 4 30 U.S.

44 2, 45 9 (1 97 7)

. Howev er, "[a ]n act io n to refo rm a writ te n in st ru m en t in acco rd an ce
wit h th e in te nt of th e pa rti es was ex cl us iv el y eq ui ta bl e, th us a cl ai m fo r refo rm at io n

un de r th e Fed eral Ru le s is tri ab le to th e co ur t." Gre at Atl

. In s. Co

. v. Li be rt y Mut

. In s.

Co

. , 77 3 F.2 d 97 6, 97 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ). Here, S mi t h F l o o r in g's cl ai m fo r br each of

co nt ract is a cl ai m at la w , w h e r eas Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's co un te rcl ai m fo r

refo rm at io n is in eq ui ty. The refo re, th e Sev en th A men dm en t rig ht to a jury tri al

at ta ch es to Sm it h F lo or in g's bre ach -o f-co nt ract cla im

.

The co ns t i tu ti on al rig ht to a jury tri al m us t be pr es erv ed whe n th e li ti ga ti on

in vo lv es le ga l an d eq ui ta bl e cl ai m s wit h co m m on is su es

. Dai ry Que en
, In c. v. W oo d

, 36 9 U.S. 46 9, 47 2– 73 (1 96 2) (ci ti ng Bea co n Th ea tr es
, In c. v. W es to ver , 35 9 U.S. 50 0,

51 0– 11 (1 95 9) ). "[T]he no rm al pr act ic e is to try bo th cl ai m s to a jury. In th is way , th e jury's ve rd ic t wil l co nc lu si ve ly se tt le th es e co m m on is su es , an d on ly is su es pe cu li ar

to th e eq ui ta bl e cl ai m wil l be le ft to be de ci de d by th e jud ge ." Br o w n l e e v. Y el lo w

Frei gh t S ys ., Inc

. , 92 1 F .2d 74 5, 7 49 (8t h C ir. 1 99 0) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

Here, in gr an ti ng Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's po st -v erd ic t m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th ere were no is su es

co m m on to bo th th e le ga l an d eq ui ta bl e cl ai m s. Th e c o u r t no te d Pen ns y lv an ia

Lum be rm en s's ack no wled gm en t th at th e po li cy , as writ te n, pr ov id ed co ve rag e fo r th e

Pi ne W areh ou se

. The co ur t al so no te d th at Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s ag reed th at if

th e po li cy were no t refo rm ed

, Sm it h Fl oo rin g wou ld pr ev ai l on it s br each -o f-co nt ract

cl ai m

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e co ur t fo un d th at th e di sp os it iv e is su e at tri al was whe th er

th e in su ran ce po li cy sh ou ld be refo rm ed ba se d on m ut ua l m is ta ke

, whi ch is a n

ex cl us iv el y eq ui ta bl e rem ed y

. As su ch

, th e co ur t ru le d th at it ha d erre d in it s pr et ria l

fin di ng th at th e cas e m

us t be t r i e d t o a jury, an d it de cl ared th at Pen ns y lv an ia

-5

-Lum

be rm en s's co un te rcl ai m fo r refo rm at io n of the po li cy sh ou ld ha ve be en tri ed to

th e co ur t.

The di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng no twi th st an di ng , we fin d th at th e br each of co nt ract

an d refo rm at io n cl a i ms do in vo lv e a co m m on is su e, na m el y , wha t th e te rm s of th e

in te nd ed co nt ract act ua ll y were. Mi ss ou ri la w co ns id ers "t he ex is te nc e an d te rm s of

a co nt ract " to be es se nt ia l el em en ts of a br each -o f-co nt ract act io n. Kev en ey v.

Mis so ur i Mi l i t ar

y Aca d.

, 30 4 S.W .3d 98

, 10 4 (Mo

. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ). Si m il arl y , a "p art y se ek in g refo rm at io n m us t sh ow th at th e writ in g fai ls to accu rat el y se t fo rth th e

te rm s of th e a ct ua l ag reem en t or fai ls to in co rp or at e th e tru e pr io r in te nt io ns of th e

pa rti es ." Bro wn v. Mic kel so n , 22 0 S.W .3d 44 2, 44 8– 49 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 2 00 7)
(q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so Bl ack 's Law Dict io na ry (9 th ed

. 20 09 ),

de fin in g refo rm at io n as "[a ]n eq ui ta bl e rem ed y by whi ch a co ur t wil l m od ify a writ te n

ag reem en t to refl ect th e act ua l in te nt of th e pa rti es ." It is im po ss ib le fo r Pen ns y lv an ia

Lum be rm en s to "s ho w th at th e writ in g fai ls to accu ra t e l y s et fo rth th e te rm s of th e

act ua l ag reem en t" wit ho ut fir st es ta bl is hi ng wha t "t he te rm s of th e act ua l ag reem en t"

are. Bro wn , 22 0 S.W .3d at 44 8– 49 (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Bu t es ta bl is hi ng 4

wha t th e "t erm s of th e act ua l ag reem en t" are is li ke wis e es se nt ia l to Sm it h Fl oo rin g's

br each -o f-co nt ract cla im

.

The di st ric t co ur t's or de r ci te d Gia nt Eag le

, In c. v. Fed er al In su ra nc e Co

. , 88 4

F. Su pp

. 97 9 (W. D. Pa. 19 95 ), fo r th e p r o p o s it io n th at a da m ag es cl ai m an d a

refo rm at io n cl ai m do no t sh are co m m on is su es

. Bu t in Gia n t Eag le th e pa rti es

st ip ul at ed th at th e so le is su e to be li ti ga te d was th e in su rer's cl ai m fo r refo rm at io n. Id

.
at 98 3– 85

. Here th ere was no su ch st ip ul at io n. Sm it h Fl oo rin g pu rs ue d it s br each -o fThe di st ric t c o u rt st at ed in ¶ 8 of it s co nc lu si on s of la w th at th e 20 08 –0 9 4 "p ol ic y do es no t accu rat el y se t fo rth th e ag reem en t be twee n Sm it h Fl oo rin g an d

Pen ns y lv an ia Lum

be rm en s th at th e Pi ne W areh ou se be ex cl ud ed fr o m c o ve rag e."
Thi s co nc lu si on on ly fo ll ows if th e co ur t det erm in ed wha t th e te rm s of th e in te nd ed

co nt ract were.

-6

-co nt ract cl ai m al l th e way to a fav o r a b l e jury ve rd ic t. Eve n pr es um in g th at

Pen ns y lv an ia Lum

be rm en s st ip ul at ed th at th e in co m pl et e writ te n po li cy pr ov id e d

co ve rag e fo r th e Pi ne W areh ou se , th at st ip ul at io n le ft in co nt ro ve rs y th e te rm s of th e

in te nd ed ag reem en t— an es se nt i a l e le m en t of Sm it h Fl oo rin g's br each -o f-co nt ract

cl ai m

. Fu rt he rm or e, Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s co un ter cl ai m ed fo r re for m ati on of the

writ te n po li cy , th ereb y co nt en di ng th at th e te rm s of th e writ te n po li cy were di ff er en t

fro m th os e o f t h e in te nd ed ag reem en t. In de ed

, Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s's own pl ead in g al le ge d th at "[i ]f th ere is co ve r a g e f o r

. . . th e Pi ne W areh ou se un de r [th e

20 08 –0 9 po li cy ], th en it

. . . do es no t st at e th e te rm s of th e ag reem en t be twee n an d th e

tru e pr io r in t e n ti on s of pl ai nt iff an d de fen da nt ." W e al so no te th at Pen ns y lv an ia

Lum be rm en s twi ce m ov ed fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on Smi t h F l o o rin g's

br each -o f-co nt ract cl ai m , on ce sta ti ng th at "we do n't be li ev e th at th e pl ai nt iff s hav e

m ad e a cas e, pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s u p po rt th ei r cl ai m fo r br each of

co nt ract in th is m at te r." The refo rm at io n an d br each -o f-co nt ract cl ai m s were bo th in

co nt ro ve rs y

he re, s o t he pre se nt cas e is di st in gu is ha bl e fro m Gia nt Eag le

.

Eve n wit h bo th cl ai m s in co nt ro ve rs y an d th e co m m on el em en t of es ta bl is hi ng

th e t erm s of th e in te nd ed co nt ract

, it co ul d st il l be th at no co m m on is su e ex is ts

be cau se th e ad m is si bl e pr oo f di ffer s in each in st an ce. W it h res pe ct to th e br each -o fco nt ract cl ai m , t he pa ro l ev id en ce ru le ba rs ad m is si on of e xt rin si c ev id en ce to va ry

or co n t rad ic t th e te rm s of an un am bi gu ou s an d co m

pl et el y in te gr at ed writ te n

ag reem en t. N. Am. Sa v. Ban k v. Reso lu ti on T ru st Co rp

. , 65 F.3 d 11 1, 11 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 ) (ap pl y in g Mi ss ou ri la w); C r a i g v. Jo B. Ga rd

ne r , In c. , 5 86 S.W .2d 31 6, 32 4
(Mo

. 19 79 ) (en ba nc ). Nev ert he le ss , Mi ss ou ri' s pa ro l ev id en ce ru le i n cl ud es

ex cep ti on s for m

ut ua l m is ta ke

, acci de nt

, or erro ne ou s om is si on

. Cr ai g , 58 6 S.W .2d

at 32 4 ("P aro l ev id en ce m ay no t be us e d t o va ry or co nt rad ic t te rm s of an

un am bi gu ou s an d co m

pl et e writ te n in st ru m en t ab se nt frau d, co m mo n mi s ta ke

, acci de nt or erro ne ou s om is si on ."); ac co rd N. Am. Sa v. Ban k

, 65 F.3 d at 11 4. W e are

co nf id en t th at th is cas e fal ls in to on e o f t h o se ex cep ti on s. Thu s, Mi ss ou ri' s pa ro l

ev id en ce ru le wou ld no t ba r th e jury fro m co ns id eri ng th e sa m e ex tri ns ic ev id en ce fo r

-7

-th e br each -o f- c on tra ct cl ai m as wou ld be av ai la bl e fo r th e refo rm at io n cl ai m whe n

de ci d i n g wha t th e te rm s of th e in te nd ed co nt ract are. Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e br each -o fco nt ract an d re fo rm at io n c la im s i nv ol ve a co m m on is su e.

The di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th at th e r e w e r e n o is su es co m m on to th e

pa rti es ' leg al an d e qu it ab le cla im s. W e co nc lu de th at Sm it h F lo or in g h ad a Sev en th

Am en dm en t rig ht to a tri al by jury on th e co mm o n i s s u e o f wha t th e te rm s of th e

in te nd ed co nt ract were. The di st ric t co ur t al so erre d in tre at in g th e ju r y's v e r d ic t as

m erel y a d v i s o r y un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 39 in so far as th is is su e is

co nc ern ed

.

Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t's erro r do es no t ne ces si ta te rev ers al of it s gr an ti ng

p o s t

- v e rd ic t jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w to Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s. Fi rs t, "i t is

se tt le d t ha t Ru le 50 (b ) [jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w] do es no t vi ol at e th e Sev en th

Am en dm en t's gu aran te e of a jury tri al ." Nee ly v. Mar ti n K. Eby Co ns tr

. Co

. , 38 6 U.S.

31 7, 32 1 (1 96 7) (ci ti ng Mon tg ome ry W ar d & Co

. v. Dun ca n , 31 1 U.S. 24 3 (19 40 )).

Seco nd

, as we sh al l no w di sc us s, th e ev id en ce i n t h i s c a se was no t su ffi ci en t to

su pp or t t he jury's ver di ct in Sm it h F lo or in g's fav or

.

B. Su ff ic ie nc y o f t he Evid en ce

"In rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury's ve rd ic t, we

in te rp ret th e reco rd in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty, affi rm in g un le ss

no reas on ab le ju r o r co ul d ha ve reac he d th e sa m e co nc lu si on ." St ru ct ur al Pol ymer Grp

., Lt d. v. Zo lt ek Co rp

. , 54 3 F.3 d 98 7, 99 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng And er so n Mkt g,

In c. v. Map le Ch as e Co

. , 24 1 F .3d 10 63 , 10 65 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1) ).

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at "cl ear, co ge nt a n d c o nv in ci ng ev id en ce
de m on st r a t e s t ha t th e po li cy do es no t accu rat el y se t fo rth th e ag reem en t be twee n

Sm it h Fl oo rin g an d Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s th at th e Pi ne W areh ou se be ex cl ud ed

fro m co ve rag e." The co ur t no te d th at "'[c ]lear, co ge nt an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce is th at

-8

-whi ch in st an tl y ti lt s th e sc al es in th e affi rm at iv e whe n wei gh ed ag ai ns t ev id en ce i n

op po si ti on ; ev id en ce whi ch cl earl y co nv in c es th e fact fin de r of th e tru th of th e

pr op os it io n to be pr ov ed .'" (Qu ot in g In In te re st of J.A.J.

, 65 2 S.W .2d 74 5, 74 8 (Mo

. Ct . Ap p. 19 83 ).) W e ag ree wit h th e di s t r i c t co ur t's as se ss m en t. In fact , we fin d th at

th e ev id en ce in fav or o f Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s is so cl ear, co ge nt

, an d

co nv in ci ng th at no reas on ab le juro r co ul d h av e rea ch ed th e o pp os it e co nc lu si on

.

You ng , an em

pl oyee of W au sa u, was Sm it h Fl oo rin g's in su ran ce ag en t. You ng

te st ifi ed th at no ne of th e do cu m en ts as so ci at ed wit h Sm it h Fl oo rin g's po li ci es

in cl ud ed a va lu e fo r th e Pi ne W areh ou se b e c a u s e, in hi s "u nd ers ta nd in g, it was

al way s ex cl ud ed ." H e t es ti fie d th at th e ab se nc e of a va lu e fo r a bu il di ng was

"i nt en [d ed ] to sh ow [th at it ] w[as ] ex cl ud ed fro m co ve rag e." He ex pl ai ne d th at "[w]e

wou ld 've as si gn ed a va lu e—o r a va lu e wou ld 've ne ed ed to be as si gn ed to th at in or de r

to ob ta i n co ve rag e." You ng te st ifi ed th at hi s "i nt en ti on an d un de rs ta nd in g [o f th e

20 07 –0 8 po li cy ] was th e sa m e as al l pr ev io us po li cy y ears ," na m el y th at "[t ]here was

no co ve rag e

. . . ." of th e Pi ne W areh ou se

. He affi rm ed th at ne it he r "M r. Sm it h [n ]or

an y bo dy fro m Sm it h Fl oo rin g ev er as ke d [h im ] or di rect ed [h im ] to ob ta in co ve rag e

fo r th os e bu il di ng s th at ha d be en ex cl ud ed ." You ng di d no te th at in Ja nu ary or
Feb ru ary of 20 08 he di s c u s s e d wit h Jo n Sm it h ("S m it h" ), th e own er of Sm it h

Fl oo rin g, th e po ss ib il it y of ad di ng co ve rag e fo r t h e Pi ne W areh ou se . Ne ve rth el es s,
he te st ifi ed th at it was on ly s om et im e aft er Mar ch 1, 2 0 0 8

, th e effe ct iv e da te of th e

20 08 –0 9 po li cy , th at Sm it h "re qu es te d or ag reed

. . . we sh ou ld ad d co ve rag e fo r th at

pa rti cu la r bu il di ng ." You ng affi rm ed th at

, "wh en t h e po li cy pe rio d be ga n fo r [th e

2 0 0 8 –0 9 po li cy ] on Mar ch 1s t, 20 08

, at th at ti m e it was [h is ] in te nt i o n a n d

un de rs ta nd in g th at th e [P]in e [W] areh ou se was st il l to b e e x c l ud ed fro m co ve rag e

un de r th e p ol ic y ."

Mar y Hen ke ("He nk e") was W au sa u's acco un t m an ag er fo r th e Sm it h Fl oo rin g

acco un t. Her jo b res po ns ib il it ie s in cl ud ed co m m un ic at in g vi a em ai l wit h W oo du s

Hum ph rey reg ard in g ch an ge s in Sm it h Fl oor ing ' s ins ur an ce co ve rag e. Hen ke te st ifi ed

-9

-th at if You ng ha d as ke d he r to ob ta in co ve rag e fo r th e Pi ne W areh ou se , sh e wou ld

ha ve rece iv ed "ei th er a no te or e-m ai l as ki ng [h er] to m ak e th e ch an ge

. And th en fro m

th ere, [s he ] wou ld ha ve se nt it of f to th e carr ie r, in th is cas e, W oo du s [Hu m ph rey] ."

Hen ke ex pl ai ne d th at if sh e ha d se nt a m es sa ge to W o o d u s H u mph rey reg ard in g a
ch an ge to Sm it h Fl oo rin g's co ve rag e, "[i ]t sh ou ld ha ve be en pa rt of [Waus au 's] fil e"

on Sm it h Fl oo rin g's co ve rag e. Fu r t h e r mo re, sh e te st ifi ed th at a ch an ge in co ve rag e

wou ld ha ve n e ces si ta te d an em ai l di sc us si on be twee n he r an d W oo du s Hum ph rey

reg ard in g t h e e f

f e ct on pr em iu m s an d ot he r ch an ge s. Nev ert he le ss , Hen ke ha d no

"re co ll ect io n th at [s he ] se nt or rece iv ed e-m ai ls

. . . to an d from W oo du s Hum ph rey

at th e d ire ct io n o f St ev e You ng ."

Lora Ro be rts ("R ob ert s" ) was a cu st om er se rv ic e rep r es en ta ti ve fo r W oo du s

Hum ph rey. Ro be rts pr ep ared Sm it h F l o o r in g's 20 07 –0 8 in su ran ce po li cy us in g

in fo rm at io n fro m th e pr e v i o u s y ear's po li cy , as well as in fo rm at io n th at Hen ke

su pp li ed to he r. Dur in g di rect ex am in at io n, Ro be rts ob se rv ed th at th e en do rs em en ts

in th e 20 07 –0 8 po li cy di ffer ed fro m th os e in th e 20 06 –0 7 po li cy

. Sh e no te d th at "t he

. . . bu il di ng s at [L]ocat io n 1 th at were no t c o v e r e d were no t in cl ud ed on th [e]

en do rs em en t" fo r th e 20 07 –0 8 po li cy

. Ro be rts ack no wled ge d th at sh e ha d pre pa red

th e en do rs em en ts fo r th e 20 07 –0 8 po li cy an d th at sh e ha d "i nt en d[ ed ] t o p u t [ t h e

en do rs em en ts ] on th ere," bu t sh e si m pl y "o ve rlo ok ed typin g th em on ." Sh e st at ed th at

th e en do rs em en ts fo r th e bu il di n g s a t Loc at io n 1 were no t in cl ud ed in th e 20 08 –0 9

po li cy ei th er. To acco un t fo r th at om is si o n , sh e ex pl ai ne d, "I wou ld ha ve ha d th e

pr ev io us y ear's po li cy in fro nt of m e as I was typin g th e ne w on e an d saw the re was

no th in g on it an d di dn 't att ach it to th is po li cy ." Her in te nt io n was "t o ex cl ud e th os e
bu il di ng s fro m co ve rag e [b y pu tt in g th em ] on th e en do rs em en t." Sh e te st ifi ed fu rth er

th at sh e di d no t "re cei ve a req ue st fro m Mar y H e n ke or an y on e el se fro m W au sa u Age nc y " to ad d co ve rag e fo r th e Pi ne W areh ou se

. Fu rth erm or e, sh e ex pl ai ne d th at if

sh e ha d "re cei ve d su ch a req ue st

, [th ere] wou ld

. . . ha ve be en a reco rd in [h er] fil e,"

y et sh e h ad ex am in ed he r fi le "[n ]um ero us ti m es " an d h ad "fo un d n ot hi ng ."

-1 0-Fi na ll y , Sm it h te st ifi ed th at You ng ha d th e au th or it y to act fo r Sm it h Fl oo rin g

to ob ta in in su ran ce. He te st ifi ed th at no p e r s o n o th er th an You ng ev er co nt act ed

W o o d u s Hum

ph rey or Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s to req ue st co ve rag e fo r th e Pi ne

W areh ou se

. Sm it h st at ed th at he "as su m ed th at [th e bu il di ng s] were al l co ve red un de r

th e b la nk et pro vi si on of t he po li cy ." Fu rth erm or e, Sm it h t es ti fie d a s fo ll ows :

Q. A n d d o y ou rem em be r an y sp eci fic co nv ers at io ns wit h St ev e You ng in 20 06 or 2 00 7 a bo ut co ve rag e?

A. I do rem em

be r on e—o ne co nv ers at io n whe n we were ta lk in g ab ou t co ve rag es an d were m en ti on in g so m e of th e bu il di ng s, an d I sa id

, "Well , th ey 're al l co ve red un de r th e b la nk et pro vi si on of t he po li cy ."

And I'm no t su re ex act ly wha t hi s res po ns e was , b u t it was

so m et hi ng li ke

, W el l, th at 's— we'll m ak e th at so or it is so , or so m et hi ng

. I do n't rem em

be r ex act ly ho w th e co nv ers at io n wen t

. B u t w e di d ta lk
ab ou t th os e th in gs , a nd we ta lk ed ab ou t m y un de rs ta nd in g of wh at th e bl an ke t p ro vi si on of t he po li cy m ean t.

Q. All rig ht

. And wha t was y ou r u n d ers ta nd in g of ho w th e bl an ke t

co ve rag e p ro vi si on work ed ?

A. Tha t we ha d a bl an ke t co ve rag e th at co ve red al l th e bu il di ng s on th e pr op ert y . I f th ey were— th ere were y ears whe re th ey were li st ed as

ex cl ud ed or no t li st ed or so m et hi ng

. W e ha d $1 00 ,00 0 de du ct ib le

. It was

m y un de rs ta nd i n g th at th at m ean t th at th os e bu il di ng s were pr ob ab ly

wor th les s t ha n $ 10 0,0 00

.

"[I ]nte rp ret [in g] t he reco rd in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to t h e pr ev ai li ng pa rty,"

St ru ct ur al Pol

ymer Grp

., Lt d.

, 54 3 F.3d at 99 1, we ag ree with th e di st ric t cou rt th at

no reas on ab le juro r co ul d ha ve fo un d th at th e 20 08 –0 9 po li cy "ac cu rat el y se t[s ] fo rth

th e ag reem en t be twee n Sm it h Fl oo rin g an d Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s th at th e Pi ne

W areh ou se be ex cl ud ed fro m co ve rag e." Em pl oyees of th e ag en ts of bo th Sm it h

Fl oo rin g an d Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s pr es en te d un eq ui vo cal an d un co nt rad ic te d

-1 1-te st im on y su ffi ci en t to supp or t fi nd in gs th at th e ab se nc e of th e ex cl us io n en do rs em en t

fo r th e bu il di ng s at Loc at io n 1 in th e 20 07 –0 8 an d 20 08 –0 9 po li ci es were in ad ve rte nt

om is si on s. Sm it h's te st im on y reg ard in g hi s as su m pt io ns an d "u nd ers ta nd in g of ho w
th e bl an ke t co ve rag e pr ov is io n wor ke d" are no t su ffi ci en t to en ab le a reas on ab le juro r

to co nc lu de ot he rwis e. The cl ear in te nt of th e pa rti es or ig in a l l y was to ex cl ud e th e

Pi ne W areh ou se fro m co ve rag e. The in ad ve rte nt om is si on of an ex cl u s i on

en do rs em en t crea te d on ly t he ap pe aran ce o f co ve rag e; it di d no t pr ov id e pr oo f of a

req ue st fo r co ve rag e or of pa y m en t th eref or

. The pr ov is io ns of th e writ te n po li cy sa ns

en do rs em en t d id no t re fle ct th e ag reem en t o f th e p art ie s t ha t t he re was no co ve rag e

fo r th e Pi ne W areh ou se in Jan ua ry 20 09

.

C. Brea ch of

Co nt ra ct

Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, "[a ] br each of co nt ract act io n in cl ud es th e fo ll owi ng

es se nt ia l el em en ts : (1 ) th e ex is te nc e an d te rm s of a c on tra ct ; (2 ) th at pl ai nt iff

pe rfo rm e d or te nd ered pe rfo rm an ce pu rs ua nt to th e co nt ract ; (3 ) br each of th e

co nt ract by th e de fen da nt ; an d (4 ) da m ag es su ffer ed by the pl ai nt iff ." Kev en ey , 30 4

S.W .3d at 10 4. Bec au se th ere was no co ve rag e fo r th e Pi ne W areh ou se , it fo ll ows th at

Pen ns y lv an ia Lum

be rm en s di d no t br each it s co nt ract in de nyin g Sm it h Fl oo rin g's

pr oo f of lo ss

. Se e, e.g

. , id . Wit h no br each , P en ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s o w e s Sm it h

Fl oo rin g n o d am ag es

.

D. Refo rma ti on
Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, "[a ] m ut ua l m is ta ke oc cu rs whe n bo th pa rti es , at th e ti m e

of co nt ract in g, sh are a m is co nc ep ti on ab ou t a ba si c as su m pt i o n of vi ta l fact up on
wh i c h t h ey ba se d th ei r ba rg ai n. Cl ear, co ge nt , a nd co nv in ci ng ev id en ce is req ui red

to su pp or t refo rm at io n fo r m ut ua l m is ta ke ." Hun t v. Est at e of Hun t

, 34 8 S.W .3d 10 3,

11 5 (M o. Ct . App . 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Fur th erm or e,

A co ur t m ay refo rm a writ te n co nt ract whe n th e writ in g ev id en ci ng th e

co nt ract fai ls to co rrec tl y refl ect th e ag reem en t.

. . . The pa rty m us t sh ow

-1 2-th e w r i t t en co nt ract do es no t accu rat el y se t fo rth th e te rm s of th e

ag reem en t act ua ll y m ad e, or do es no t in co rp or a te th e tru e pr io r in te nt io ns of th e pa rti es

. Mor el an d v. St at e Far m Fir e an d Ca su al ty Co

., 66 2 S.W .2d 55 6, 56 1 (Mo

. App

. 19 83 ); Res t a t e men t (Sec on d) of
Co nt ract s § 15 5 (1 98 1)

.

Ko pf f v. Eco n. Ra di at or

Se rv

. , 83 8 S .W .2d 44 9, 4 52 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 1 99 2)

.

W e ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t w a s c o r r e c t to fin d th at "cl ear, co ge nt an d

co nv in ci ng ev id en ce de m on st rat es th at th e po li cy do es n o t a c c u r a te ly se t fo rth th e

ag reem en t be twee n Sm it h Fl oo rin g an d Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s th at th e Pi ne

W areh ou se be ex cl ud ed fro m co ve rag e." Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err

in refo rm in g t he po li cy

.

III. Co nc lu si on

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng jud gm en t as

a m at te r of la w to Pen ns y lv an ia Lum be rm en s on th e br each of c o n t r a c t an d

refo rm at io n c la im s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-