An insurer paid the building and contents fire losses incurred by a manufacturer, but litigation followed a dispute over interpretation of gross earnings and extra expense coverage endorsements attached to the policy. The trial court awarded the insured the full limit of insurance provided under the policy for loss of gross earnings, but held that the insurer was not obligated to make payment under the extra expense coverage endorsement.

The appeal process included argument by the insured for reformation of the contract to accommodate payment of substantial extra expenses that were incurred. A letter to the insured's president from the brokerage firm that arranged the insurance program was introduced in evidence. It notified the insured that "endorsements are in process at this time deleting the Extra Expense. . . ." Further testimony was introduced that the insured was intent on reducing its insurance expenses and "specifically rejected extra expense coverage."

The appeal court found the insured's appeal for reformation of the policy without merit. It affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the award to the insured for its gross earnings loss was proper and that the denial of the insured's extra expense claim was "amply supported by the evidence."

(WESTERN AMERICAN, INC. dba WESTERN ADHESIVES OF MISSOURI, Appellee, Appellant v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, Appellee. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Nos. 88-2562, 88-2563. Filed October 2, 1990. CCH 1991 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 2789.)