Opinion ID: 1816029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of verdict.

Text: The difficulty presented by defendant's argument on appeal lies in the fact that it is predicated upon the testimony of Hansen and the subsequent issuance of the endorsement for the period of June 30th to July 9th. However, the plaintiff testified he ordered coverage from the Hansen Agency for the month of July and the jury chose to believe the evidence offered by the plaintiff. There is sufficient credible evidence to support the finding of the jury and the judgment entered thereon reforming the policy. Obviously there was some communication between the plaintiff, the Hansen Agency, the Gustin Agency and the defendant, because the defendant did in fact issue an endorsement. The well-accepted rule governing this court's review in a case like this is that the verdict of the jury must be sustained if there is any credible evidence which, under any reasonable view, supports that verdict. This is especially true when, as here, the jury's verdict has been approved by the trial court. The question is not whether there is credible evidence in the record to sustain a finding the jury did not make, but whether there is any credible evidence to sustain the finding the jury did make. Altiere v. Bremer (1968), 39 Wis. 2d 548, 549, 550, 159 N. W. 2d 664. There was an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony as to how Gilbert applied for the Great Lakes endorsement. Gilbert testified that sometime prior to June 30, 1967, he called Hansen, told him he had made plans to take the boat into Lake Michigan, and asked him about Great Lakes coverage, but did not ask Hansen to obtain coverage for him at that time. He testified that on June 30, 1967, he called the Ray Hansen Agency; that the telephone was answered by a female; that he asked to speak to Ray Hansen but was told he was not in; that he told this female he wanted Great Lakes coverage for the entire month of July; and that she said she would relay the message. He testified that he did not know the name of the person with whom he spoke. He further testified that other than the telephone conversation prior to June 30, 1967, he did not discuss the period of coverage directly with Hansen. Hansen testified that it was he who spoke with Gilbert on June 30, 1967; that Gilbert stated he was taking a vacation the following week and was taking his boat to Door county; and that Gilbert asked for the extended coverage through July 9, 1967. He testified that after he spoke with Gilbert, he called the Gustin Agency and ordered the Great Lakes endorsement for Gilbert for the period from June 30 to July 9, 1967. Hansen further testified that his only employee was a nineteen-year-old girl, Mary Rowe; and that she was on vacation on June 30. Mary Rowe also testified she was Hansen's only employee; that she did not speak with Gilbert on June 30, 1967; and that she was not working on that day. Hansen did, however, testify that he had an answering service in June of 1967. The trial court, in ruling on motions after verdict, found Question No. 2 of the special verdict sufficient to support the judgment. We agree with the trial court's determination that the only conflicting testimony concerned these two versions as to how the application for the Great Lakes endorsement was made by Gilbert. And since the Great Lakes endorsement was thereafter issued, and because the jury believed Gilbert's version with regard to the length of time for which the coverage was requested, the error must have been made by Hansen when he ordered the endorsement from the Gustin Agency. Appellant contends that Question No. 2 of the special verdict, inquiring whether plaintiff spoke to a female answering the telephone of the Ray Hansen Agency was not sufficient to support the judgment because there was no proof this female was an agent or employee of the Hansen Agency. We conclude the affirmative answer to the special verdict question does support the judgment. In arriving at this conclusion, we consider it significant that the jury chose to believe the testimony offered by the plaintiff that he did in fact request coverage for the month of July, rather than the testimony of Hansen which was to the effect that plaintiff called him directly and requested coverage for a shorter period of time. This, coupled with the fact the defendant did ultimately issue an endorsement at the direction of Hansen, although for a shorter period of time than the jury found the plaintiff requested, is support for the judgment. Much of defendant's argument seems to ignore the fact the jury found that plaintiff had requested coverage for thirty days and that the Hansen Agency, the Gustin Agency and the defendant did actually respond to the request, although the endorsement finally issued was for ten days, rather than one month. In Kiviniemi v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (1930), 201 Wis. 619, 627, 231 N. W. 252, this court held that when, in the ordinary course of business, a telephone call is made to a place of business and someone there accepts the communication, it is prima facie evidence that the person receiving the call is authorized to do so, even though that person is not identified: . . . when one calls up a person's place of business by phone in the usual way in connection with business with such person and someone there answers and undertakes to accept the communication, this is prima facie evidence that the message was delivered to someone authorized to receive it on behalf of that person, even though the voice of the person is not identified. . . . In the instant case, the plaintiff testified that the person with whom he spoke answered his call by stating, the Ray Hansen Agency, and thereafter undertook to accept his communication. It having been determined that the plaintiff requested coverage for one month, followed by Hansen's overt acts in securing the endorsement actually issued, it is not necessary that plaintiff prove the identity of the person who received the call or that she was an agent or employee of Hansen, the defendant's statutory agent. In Artmar, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co., supra , this court held that where the insured informs the agent of his coverage needs; relies on the agent to provide the necessary coverage; and a mistake is made by the agent in effecting coverage, reformation of the policy is permitted in favor of the insured. The court stated that a unilateral mistake of the agent is sufficient grounds for reformation of an insurance contract because of the insured's reliance on the agent to adequately protect his interests. . . . A cause of action for reformation of an insurance policy is allowed when the one seeking reformation shows that because of fraud or mutual mistake the policy does not contain provisions desired and intended to be included. In insurance cases less is required to make out a cause of action for reformation than in ordinary contract disputes. One reason for this standard is quoted in Jeske v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp.: `In common practice the assured informs the agent of his coverage necessities and leaves it entirely to the agent to provide therefor. The average individual accepts the policy tendered relying upon the assurance on the part of the insurer, express or implied, that the policy affords him the coverage desired. ' The standard for reformation of an insurance contract where fault or neglect of the agent is involved is spelled out by 13 Appleman, Insurance, p. 368, sec. 7609: `Where a policy of insurance, which has been drawn up by the agent of the insurer and merely accepted by the insured, does not represent the intention of both parties, because of the fault or neglect of the agent, it may be reformed so as to express the contract it was intended should be made. Where the party applying for insurance states the facts to the agent and relies on him to write the policy, which will protect his interests, and the agent so understands, but fails by mistake to so write the contract, the mistake is considered mutual. The insured has been held entitled to a reformation and is not limited to a return of the policy and demand of a rescission. `A mistake due to the negligence of an agent, acting within the scope of his employment, is satisfactory ground for reformation, since the insured ordinarily relies upon the agent to set out properly the facts in the application. . . .' This statement permits an action for reformation when there is a mistake by the agent, even though the mistake is not technically mutual. Moreover, the statement recognizes the reliance which most people place upon an insurance agent to protect their interests. Artmar, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co., supra, pages 186, 187. In the present case, the insured did not inform Hansen directly; however, once the statutory agent of the defendant undertook to secure the endorsement the situation takes on a different complexion. Under the facts of this case, the verdict was sufficient to support the judgment.