Citation Numbers: 614 S.W.2d 246
Filed Date: 10/14/1980
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/1/2021
OPINION OF THE COURT
The question before the court is whether the Court of Appeals properly reversed the trial court’s reformation of an insurance contract.
The movant, Randolph Anderson, applied for broad form insurance coverage for his construction equipment with Zurich Insurance Company through an independent insurance agency, Curtis Cobb. Without Anderson’s knowledge or consent, Zurich’s underwriter changed the application to coverage for specific perils, and a specific perils policy was issued. When two of Anderson’s claims were rejected by Zurich as outside
It is undisputed that Anderson applied for broad form coverage and that Zurich’s underwriter, without notice to Anderson, changed the application to specific perils. KRS 304.14r-090(l) provides that “Any application for insurance in writing by the applicant shall be altered solely by the applicant or by his written consent,” and (3) provides that “An insurer issuing a policy upon an application which has been unlawfully altered by its officer, employe, or agent shall not have available in any action arising out of such policy, any defense based upon the fact of such alteration, or as to any item which was so altered." This statute is clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case, and Zurich is stripped of any defense based on the limitation of coverage in the policy as issued. Thus the proper remedy places the parties in the position required by the policy, had it been consistent with the application before alteration. Anderson is entitled to recover whatever damages would have been provided by the broad form coverage which he sought to obtain.
In reversing the judgment
The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. For convenience, we refer to the “judgment” as including the series of partial judgments.
. There were two losses. In the judgment of the trial court Zurich’s exposure to liability on one of them resulted from Cobb’s negligence.