Wheilers submitted a claim to Magnanimous, the insurance company denied the claim
because flood coverage was not provided by the policy. The Wheilers have sued
Magnanimous in an effort to obtain reformation of the written policy (so that it would
provide flood coverage). Under which of the following alternative scenarios would the
Wheilers stand the best chance of obtaining a court order of reformation?
A. If Dell informed the Wheilers, after the loss but before submission of their formal
claim to Magnanimous, that the policy did not furnish flood coverage, but urged the
Wheilers to submit their claim anyway.
B. If the Wheilers’ assumption that the policy would furnish flood coverage stemmed
from the fact that floods have occurred every few years in the Missouri area.
C. If Dell told the Wheilers at the time of the application that the policy would furnish
flood coverage.
D. If the Wheilers did not read their policy after receiving it from Magnanimous and
therefore first learned that their policy did not provide flood coverage when their claim
was denied by Magnanimous.
For a third person to have the right to enforce a contract, he/she must necessarily prove
that:
A. he/she was the party to the contract.
B. he/she had been given a promise.
C. the contract was made to benefit him.
D. the contract provides him/her incidental benefit.
Which of the following is true of the materiality of breach?
A. Courts generally adopt strict standards to determine materiality.
B. The magnitude of the breach is of relatively less importance.
C. There is a no concern about compensating the nonbreaching party.
D. The timing of the breach is generally taken into consideration.