Menado Corp. v. Indemnity Insurance of North America

Plaintiff sues on a policy issued by defendant, providing safe burglary coverage ‘‘ Inside or outside of any chest in Safe No. 1 ”. Defendant counterclaims: (1) for reformation, alleging the intended coverage was only 1 ‘ Inside of chest in Safe No. 1 ”, and that the misdescription of the coverage was occasioned by a scrivener’s mistake; and (2) for an increased premium if reformation is denied under the first counterclaim.

Plaintiff previously moved for summary judgment before the undersigned. The motion was denied upon the ground that there were triable issues as to whether there was a…