Emrys v. Farmers Ins. Co.

"In Oregon, a court will reform a written agreement if the party seeking that remedy establishes three things: (1) an antecedent agreement to which the contract can be reformed; (2) a mutual mistake or, alternatively, a unilateral mistake by one party along with inequitable conduct by the other party; and (3) the party seeking reformation was not grossly negligent." A&T siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 358 Or 32, 42-43 (2015).

Plaintiff appealed for the second time seeking reformation of an insurance contract.  Plaintiff assigned error to "the trial court's denial of her motion for a directed verdict and its ruling that Plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of an antecedent agreement by clear and convincing evidence."  On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the court misapplied the requirements of an antecedent agreement.  In response, Defendant argued that the Plaintiff presented conflicting evidence that complicated the determination of whether Plaintiff intended to continue with the policy, to insure the whole property, or to insure only the leased parcel of the property.  "In Oregon, a court will reform a written agreement if the party seeking that remedy establishes three things: (1) an antecedent agreement to which the contract can be reformed; (2) a mutual mistake or, alternatively, a unilateral mistake by one party along with inequitable conduct by the other party; and (3) the party seeking reformation was not grossly negligent." A&T siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 358 Or 32, 42-43 (2015).  The Court held that the trial court erred on remand in the same way that it erred the first time, justifying a de novo review of the matter; concluding that it was undisputed that the parties had an antecedent agreement to insure the leased property located at 106 Cofey Crossing Lane.  Reversed and remanded.