Opinion ID: 2626085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Law of Reformation

Text: [¶ 15] An insurance policy is a contract and as such is subject to the same rules of construction as any contract. State ex rel. Arnold v. Ommen, 2009 WY 24, ¶ 37, 201 P.3d 1127, 1137 (Wyo.2009); Colorado Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sammons, 2007 WY 75, ¶ 12, 157 P.3d 460, 465 (Wyo.2007); Cathcart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2005 WY 154, ¶ 18, 123 P.3d 579, 587 (Wyo.2005). Reformation is an equitable remedy available in cases where a mistake in the drafting of the written contract makes the writing convey the intent or meaning of neither party to the contract. This Court has previously explained: Reformation is an equitable remedy which emanates from the maxim that equity treats that as done which ought to have been done. 66 Am.Jur.2d Reformation of Instruments § 2 at 528 (1973). At its most fundamental level, the remedy acknowledges the fact that for one reason or another written instruments do not always accurately memorialize the antecedent agreement of the parties. See 3 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 540 (1960). Accordingly, a court acting in equity may reform a written instrument upon clear and convincing evidence of the following elements: (1) a meeting of the minds a mutual understanding between the partiesprior to the time a writing is entered into, (2) a written contract, or agreement, or deed (3) which does not conform to the understanding, by reason of mutual mistake. Clear and convincing evidence is defined as that kind of proof which would persuade a trier of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable. Hutchins v. Payless Auto Sales, Inc., 2002 WY 8, ¶ 19, 38 P.3d 1057, 1063 (Wyo.2002), (some citations omitted). [¶ 16] In McMurry Construction I, we stated: The availability of the remedy of reformation is entirely dependent upon two particulars: (1) that the mistake occurred in the drafting of the instrument, rather than in reaching the antecedent agreement, Hutchings v. Krachun, 2002 WY 98, ¶ 20, 49 P.3d 176, 183 (Wyo.2002), overruled in part on other grounds by White v. Allen, 2003 WY 39, 65 P.3d 395 (Wyo.2003); and (2) that the mistake was reciprocal and common to both parties with each party being under the same misconception as to the terms of the written instrument, Mathis v. Wendling, 962 P.2d 160, 164 (Wyo.1998). In other words, an agreement was reached, but that agreement was not correctly recited in the subsequently written instrument. Whether or not that initial agreement was reached is a question of fact. Raymond v. Steen, 882 P.2d 852, 856 (Wyo.1994). McMurry Construction I, ¶ 19, 160 P.3d at 77-78 (footnote omitted).