Canal Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a contract may be reformed based upon a mutual mistake
• implying that, although the facts did not indicate a mutual mistake, had there been a drafting mistake resulting in the \named insured\ being defined other than as the parties mutually intended, reformation of the \named insured\ clause would be appropriate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).