The facts of this case do not permit reformation of the insurance contract. Appellants also argue that Lowell Saunders bound them to the flood-insurance contract as their agent. This court will generally not consider matters not argued and considered in the district court. Because this argument was not raised before the district court, it is not properly before us. Moreover, appellant has not alleged, and the record does not contain, sufficient facts to establish that Lowell Saunders had, or was acting on, authority to bind appellants.
Appellants retain their interests, as before, in the land.
We conclude that the district court properly applied the law. Insurance policies are personal contracts with the insured. Lowell Saunders purchased the minimum amount of flood-insurance coverage available. That the amount of coverage may have exceeded the monetary value of the Lowell Saunders's ownership interest in the property does not mean the other owners, whose interests remained uninsured, are entitled to share in the proceeds. Because the policy was personal to Lowell Saunders, respondents are entitled to retain the proceeds.