Opinion ID: 2637500
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Simmons Has Standing to Seek Reformation of the INA Policy Naming Carol Mills d/b/a Happy Puppy Enterprises as the Insured.

Text: INA briefly argues that because Simmons is not a party to the insurance policy, she lacks standing to sue for its reformation. INA's argument warrants little discussion. In order to have standing, a party need only demonstrate a sufficient `personal stake' in the outcome of the controversy. [8] In this case, Simmons stands to gain considerably if the contract is reformed to include Walldow as a named insured, for then the policy may confer coverage on her as a family member. In addition, we have specifically stated that an unnamed party may have rights as an implied beneficiary of an insurance contract. [9] Thus, we have permitted an unnamed party to seek reformation of an insurance policy. [10] In this case, we conclude that Simmons's personal stake in the reformation of the insurance policy is therefore sufficient to confer standing.