WPC+ [UhC_ e즮AGO+P ntfs{e33q)/+ "ƱM-O4hƪFsAE1/X&t\9 L 51afAI bµdqu>yƈ hœy;<zV)8hް&Ϊ#$WyKHܙ5X1ٕq= =Bc灍bvI?*&:2PP'.vM_r[ɬj|l6/ԉ5AcW 䜞 >}Km4>i׬UK|jocߥr-+`_~XnxX~4%D#H7,| XJwX˨L"_{Bl7mk2_Ui[Px& ǡk gO0?+'1L-;LG~GA Lt+n[46l1ߘ̲+^]# UN! %o 0YuU:w@ 4H \ k U<s N ^  m f 0< Y[ 0DUNF- AQ= 0DGUN 1m 0cUN<UN"UNB##UN}'UN' 0D( 0D]( D/( B(( D3)U:"*\*U:b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+b+ B+HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(14$J IXXZ3cp Z"Times Regular klDmnEopEqDrsӀ}kDJ&3|x\  `$Times NewRomanZ&U NORTHLANDGLASSMANSORINGlassmanJeterNorthland uncontroverted Doowaverunners IzzyRentenbachGothardLedbetterIntlVakilIdnaniC.J.S.((2P$ 4!JJXXZ  JJ    /    0   O 0$JIXXZVIJ   @ @lV   3    _ԀItappearstheremaybeaquestionoffinalityoftheorderappealedfrom,  althoughthatissuewasneitherraisednorbriefedbytheparties.Onitsface,theorderappearstobeafinaljudgmentdisposingofallclaimsandparties.However,Appelleesbriefincludesabriefstatementthat thereremainsaclaimforbadfaith.TherecordrevealsthatThirdPartyPlaintiffbroughtaclaimforbadfaithandspecifically reservedtheissueofbadfaithandadditionaldamagesinhismotionforsummaryjudgmentonenforcementoftheinsurancecontract.Therecordalsoindicatesthetrialcourtsawarenessofandregardfortherulesregardingfinalityoforders,andtheOrderincludeslanguageindicatingthetrialcourtsunderstandingthatdispositionofthesummaryjudgmentmotionswoulddisposeoftheentiredisputebetweentheparties.ThisCourtisoftheopinionthatthetrialcourtisthemoreappropriateforumfordeterminationofwhethertheOrderdisposesofallclaims.Therefore,totheextentthatanyissueexistsregardingcomplianceoftheOrderappealedhereinwiththefinalityrequirementsofTenn.R.App.P.3andTenn.R.CivilP.54,suchdefectiswaivedpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.2,intheinterestofjudicialeconomyinviewoftheadvancedstageofthisappeal.(#$  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  0$JIXXZVIJ   @ @lV   2    _ԀAppellantsdonotdisputeMr.McPhersonsentitlementtojudgmentfor  theamountofpolicycoverage,butmerelydisputetheamount.  0$JIXXZeIJ   @ @l)e   1    _ԀThestandardhasbeendescribedasclearandconclusive,Davidsonv.  Greer,35Tenn.(3_Sneed_)384(1855),clear,certainandsatisfactory,Baileyv.  Bailey,27Tenn.(8Humph)230(1847),clear,convincingandsatisfactory,Jones * v.Jones,150Tenn.554,266_S.W._Ԁ110(1925),clear,cogentandconvincing, ? Whitakerv.Moore,14Tenn.App.204(1938),full,clearandunequivocal,Perry  T v.Pearson,20Tenn.(1Humph)431(1839).SeePiercev.Flynn,656S.W.2d  i 46. ##d#%&'C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !    0$JIXXZVIJ   @ @lV   1    _ԀThestandardhasbeendescribedasclearandconclusive.Davidsonv.  Greer,35Tenn.(3_Sneed_)384(1855),clear,certainandsatisfactory,Baileyv.  Bailey,27Tenn.(8Humph)230(1847),clear,convincingandsatisfactory,Jones * v.Jones,150Tenn.554,266_S.W._Ԁ110(1925),clear,cogentandconvincing. ? Whitakerv.Moore,14Tenn.App.204(1938),full,clearandunequivocal,Perry  T v.Pearson,20Tenn.(1Humph)431(1839).(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular#=e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2=e  0  .3  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  0$ JIXXZ eIJ   @ @!l)e   1    _ԀThestandardhasbeendescribedasclearandconclusive,Davidsonv.  Greer,35Tenn.(3_Sneed_)384(1855),clear,certainandsatisfactory,Baileyv.  Bailey,27Tenn.(8Humph)230(1847),clear,convincingandsatisfactory,Jones * v.Jones,150Tenn.554,266_S.W._Ԁ110(1925),clear,cogentandconvincing, ? Whitakerv.Moore,14Tenn.App.204(1938),full,clearandunequivocal,Perry  T v.Pearson,20Tenn.(1Humph)431(1839).SeePricev.Flynn,656S.W.2d46.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  0$#JIXXZ#eIJ   @ @$l)e   1    _ԀThestandardhasbeendescribedasclearandconclusive,Davidsonv.  Greer,35Tenn.(3_Sneed_)384(1855),clear,certainandsatisfactory,Baileyv.  Bailey,27Tenn.(8Humph)230(1847),clear,convincingandsatisfactory,Jones * v.Jones,150Tenn.554,266_S.W._Ԁ110(1925),clear,cogentandconvincing, ? Whitakerv.Moore,14Tenn.App.204(1938),full,clearandunequivocal,Perry  T v.Pearson,20Tenn.(1Humph)431(1839).See_Preice_Ԁv.Flynn,656S.W.2d  i 46.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd "  +X XXX+O  X+X   Ad FILED+X X +O  March8,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh \\\\'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular "  -X XXX-O  X-X   Ad FILED-X X -O  February18,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular d 4!JJXXZ  _JJ bTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  l }sr)*<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rs}}r,*<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r}@  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@||(ATNASHVILLE   JOSEPHRUSSELL   8   ) K  Plaintiff/CounterDefendant  )    d v.  0      8   ) - }   0      8   )SECURITYINSURANCEINC.  ) _   Defendant     8   )  No.01A019803CV00135 x  MIDSOUTHINSURANCE 8   )   SPECIALISTS  and   8   )  DavidsonqChanceryqrCircuitr96C866   NORTHLANDINSURANCE 8   )   COMPANIES     8   ) ,   Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs/  ) E   andCounterDefendants/  ) ^  Appellants     8   ) 'w   0      8   )v.  0      8   ) Y   0      8   )CHARLESMCPHERSON, 8   )   ThirdPartyDefendant/ 8   )   ThirdPartyPlaintiff0 8   ) 8T$8T$  Defendant/Appellee 8   ) & @O O APPEALFROMTHEFIFTHCIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSON@ COUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEWALTERKURTZPRESIDINGRICHARDGLASSMANandRICHARDSORINGlassman,Jeter,Edwards&Wade,P.C.26NorthSecondStreetMemphis,Tennessee38103 AttorneysforDefendants/AppellantsANNERUSSELL2021RichardJonesRoadSuite350Nashville,Tennessee37215 AttorneyforThirdPartyPlaintiff/Appellee@$ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  4L0,   0      8 PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:KOCH,J.sl 7XdJJd7  l #d#  sCAIN,J. ;62 l 7XdJJd7  sl #d#  ssl  8sXdJJd8   l  8sXdJJd8   s#b#      OPINION#   ## #  Z   Inthisactiontwoinsurancecompaniessoughttoreformacontractprovidingfor$25,000inmedicalpaymentcoveragebasedonaclaimthatthe$25,000amount,whichappearedintheoriginalpolicyandtworenewals,wasatypographicalerror.Thecompaniesinsistedthat$2500wasthecorrectamountsincetheinsuredrequested maximumcoverageand$2500wasthemaximumcoveragethecompanyofferedforthetypeofinsuranceinvolved.Thetrialcourtdeniedtheinsurancecompaniesmotionforsummaryjudgment,refusingtoreformthecontract,andgrantedthethirdpartybeneficiarysmotionforsummaryjudgmentforenforcementofthecontractaswritten.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Thefactsofthecaseareuncontroverted.Theoriginalplaintiff,Mr.JosephRussell,purchasedtwoSeaDoowaverunnersandproceededtosecureinsurancecoverageforthem.Heaskedhisinsurancebrokertoobtainapolicywiththe maximumcoverage.MidSouthInsurancebrokeredthetransactioninwhichthepolicywasissuedbyNorthlandInsuranceCompanies.ThepolicywaspurchasedonJuly21,1992,andwasrenewedonJuly22,1993andJuly22,1994.Mr.Russellpaidallofthepremiums.Theamountofcoverageformedicalpaymentslistedonthefaceofthepolicyandbothrenewalnoticeswastwentyfivethousanddollars($25,000). OnMay25,1994CharlesMcPherson,aguestofMr.Russells,wasridingoneofMr.Russellswaverunnerswhenhehadanaccidentandsustainedabrokenfemur.Thisinjuryresultedin$29,000inmedicalexpensesforMr. 9.5/ McPherson.Mr.McPhersonmadeaclaimunderMr.Russellsinsurancepolicy. 8>40 NorthlandInsuranceCompanytookthepositionthattheywereonlyliablefor$2500dollarsinmedicalpaymentsandthatthe$25,000figureappearingonthepolicyandontherenewalnoticeswasatypographicalerror. Theinsurancecompaniesarguethattheoriginalcontractshouldbereformedsothatitwillreflecttheamountofmedicalpaymentcoverageastwentyfivehundreddollars($2500).Theycontendthatthetypographicalerrorshowinga$25,000maximumdoesnotreflectthetrueagreementofthepartiesandrepresentsamutualmistake.Theycontendthatsincetheinsuredrequested maximumcoverageandsince$2500wasthemaximumcoveragetheyoffered,therewasanagreementbetweenthepartieswhichthepolicydidnotaccuratelyreflect.InathoroughandwellreasonedMemorandum,thetrialcourtheldthattherewasnomutualmistakeandrefusedreformationofthecontract. Thereformationofacontractisanequitableremedyapplicabletoinsurancecontracts,likeothertypesofcontracts,wherethereisamutualmistakeoftheparties.CincinnatiInsuranceCo.v.Post,747S.W.2d777(Tenn.1988); b" Piercev.Flynn,656S.W.2d42(Tenn.App.1983);AfricanTradingIntl,Inc. $ v.FiremansFundIns.Co.,583S.W.2d607(TennApp.1979).Aparty_seekingpoPop_ &!  reformationmustprovethegroundsthereforbyclearandconvincingevidence.bdhhh"hdddbbb %  1      ׀ ($" CincinnatiInsuranceCo.v.Post,747S.W.2d781;RentenbachEngineeringCo.nmPmn *.&$ v.GeneralRealtyLtd.,707S.W.2d524,527(Tenn.App.1985).Theremedyof ,M(& reformationprovidesanequitablemeanstocarryoutthetrueintentofthepartieslkPkl /l*( whereitisclearthecontract,aswritten,doesnotaccuratelyreflectthatintent.  ЀSeeVakilv.Idnani,748S.W.2d196(Tenn.App.1987).Obviously,  reformationbytheCourttorewritethecontractnecessitatesthattheintentofbothpartiesbeclearandbethesame.Wheretherehasbeenameetingofthemindsastoacontract,butthewritteninstrumentdoesnotexpresswhatwasreallyintendedbytheparties,theinstrumentmaybereformedtoconformtotheagreementaccordingtotheintentionoftheparties.CincinnatiInsuranceCo.v. j  Post,747S.W.2d777(Tenn.1988);Walkerv.Walker,2Tenn.Ct.App.279  (1925). Thedeterminativequestioniswhetherthereisclearandconvincingevidencethatthe$25,000figureonthepolicywasamutualmistake.Amutualmistakeisonethatmustbecommontobothparties.Itmustbeshownthatbothpartiesintendedtoagreetothesamething,butthecontract,througherror,failstoexpressthatmutualandidenticalintent.Amutualmistakeisonewherebothpartiestoabilateraltransactionsharethesameerroneousbelief,andtheiractsdonotinfactaccomplishtheirmutualintent.Id. $  Inthiscase,thetrialcourtfound:Z8 80 ! !Thiswasnotamutualmistake,butratheraunilateralmistake.Theinsurancecompaniescannotredefinetheinsuredsintentionsafterthefact.Furthermore,itwouldbeirrationaltoallowonepartytoacontracttounilaterallydefineatermsuchas maximumcoverage. 0 0  ZWeagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusions. Inthiscasetheinsuredaskedforthe maximumcoverage.Theinsurancecompanyrespondedwithapolicystatingthatcoverageas$25,000.Theinsuredhadnowayofknowingthattheinsurancecompanyintendedtoprovideonly$2500asmaximumcoveragewhenthepolicyandrenewalnoticeshereceived 831 providedotherwise. Amistakebyonepartycoupledwithignorancethereofbytheotherpartydoesnotconstituteamutualmistake.76C.J.S.ReformationofInstruments29at382(1996)c.c AppellantshaveneitherallegednorshownanyevidencethattheinsuredhadbeeninformedoforhadacknowledgedoracceptedNorthlandsinterpretationof maximumcoverageas$2500.ThesedefectsarefataltoAppellantsclaimbecausetheydemonstratethelackofanyidenticalintentbetweenthepartiestothecontractwhichdiffersfromthelanguageofthecontractitself.SeeCityofMemphisv.Moore,818S.W.2d13(Tenn.App.  1991).Thiswasnotamutualmistake,butratheraunilateralmistakebytheinsurancecompanies.Reformationofacontractisnotavailableasaremedyinacaseinvolvingunilateralmistake. Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtdenyingsummaryjudgmentandWinWXreXformationofthecontracttoMidSouthandNorthlandZZYInsuranceCompaniesYandgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoMr.McPhersonisaffirmed, %  2      ׀ VVandthecaseisremandedfor C  whateverfurther[[proceedingsmayberequired. %  3      ׀Thecostsofthisappealshould b" betaxedtotheappellants.#V V(#     AppelleehasrequestedthisCourttofindthisappealfrivolousandtoawardhimdamagespursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.271122.Afterdueconsiderationoftheentirerecordinthisappeal,thatrequestisherebydenied. VVZ  0      8 _______________________________  0      8 PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JUDGE____________________________#V V]+#WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE