Smith Flooring, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance, 713 F.3d 933

Smith Flooring obtained annual commercial property policies from Pennsylvania Lumbermens (2004–2009), each with an endorsement excluding certain buildings including the Pine Warehouse.
The 2007–08 and 2008–09 policies omitted the exclusion endorsement, creating the appearance that Pine Warehouse was covered.
Pine Warehouse collapsed in January 2009; Smith Flooring claimed loss and insurer denied; suit filed seeking breach and declaratory judgment, with reformation counterclaim by the insurer.
At trial, the jury found for Smith Flooring on breach and for reformation; the district court later treated the verdict as advisory and reformed the policy, excluding Pine Warehouse, reducing damages to $170,000.
The insurer moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on breach and for reduction of damages; the district court granted JMOL and vacated the jury verdict, entering its own findings.
On appeal, the court held the breach and reformation claims shared a common issue (terms of the intended contract) and Smith Flooring had a Seventh Amendment right to a jury on that issue; the court ultimately affirmed the JMOL on both claims, upholding the district court’s reformation and denial of breach damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do breach and reformation share a common issue?	Smith Flooring	Pennsylvania Lumbermens	Yes; common issue exists
Is there a Seventh Amendment right to a jury on the common issue?	Smith Flooring	Pennsylvania Lumbermens	Yes; defendant’s post-verdict JMOL permissible but jury right preserved on common issue
Was the district court correct to grant JMOL on breach?	Smith Flooring	Pennsylvania Lumbermens	No; JMOL affirmed; absence of coverage defeats breach claim
Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict on the policy terms?	Smith Flooring	Pennsylvania Lumbermens	No; evidence showed inadvertent omissions and intended exclusion of Pine Warehouse

Atlas Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1977) (Seventh Amendment damages and jury issues; legal/equitable distinctions)
Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1962) (Seventh Amendment; concurrent legal/equitable claims)
Brownlee v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 921 F.2d 745 (8th Cir. 1990) (jury handling of common issues with equitable claims)
Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. 2010) (elements of breach of contract under Missouri law)
Moreland v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 662 S.W.2d 556 (Mo. App. 1983) (reformation and intent of parties; contract terms)
Kopff v. Econ. Radiator Serv., 838 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (parol evidence and reform/mutual mistake considerations)
Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 884 F. Supp. 979 (W.D. Pa. 1995) (distinguishes breadth of reformation vs. damages in similar settings)
N. Am. Sav. Bank v. Resolution Trust Corp., 65 F.3d 111 (8th Cir. 1995) (parol evidence and contract interpretation in agency/insurer context)