Sardo v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey
100 N.J. Eq. 332; 134 A. 774 (1926)
Sardo (plaintiff) sought theft insurance for jewelry in his store, and Fidelity & Deposit Co.'s (Fidelity) (defendant) agent said he could only issue burglary coverage and would check with Fidelity about a policy meeting Sardo's needs; Fidelity ultimately issued a policy covering "money and securities," not jewelry, and Sardo, without reading it, assumed it covered jewelry because that's what he'd originally requested. After a robbery, Fidelity denied coverage, and the trial court reformed the policy to substitute "jewelry" for "securities," reasoning Fidelity's agent knew Sardo's store held no securities.
Whether an insurance policyholder is entitled to reformation of the policy based on his own mistaken belief about what the policy covers.