Following an alleged altercation between a Diamondhead police officer and two Diamondhead residents, Harleysville sued Diamondhead, the officer, and the two residents, seeking reformation of the insurance contract and a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the officer.

The district court granted Harleysville its desired relief, and the officer appealed.

The circuit court's decision

The circuit court affirmed.

In its decision, the circuit court found that the “uncontroverted evidence” demonstrated that Harleysville, the insurance agent and Diamondhead all had intended to enter into an insurance policy that excluded coverage for law enforcement and that Harleysville's failure to exclude that coverage from the policy had been inadvertent. The circuit court then held that the district court, therefore, had not erred in reforming the policy to reflect the parties' intent.

The case is Harleysville Worchester Ins. Co. v. Diamondhead Property Owners Ass'n, Inc., No. 13–2061 (8th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014). Attorneys involved include: Luther Oneal Sutter, Benton, AR, for appellant; Mariam T. Hopkins, Mark D. Wankum, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.

Originally published on FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center. FC&S Legal is the industry's ONLY single-source, comprehensive portal developed specifically for insurance coverage law professionals. To find out more, visit www.fcandslegal.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

This article is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.