parties can agree to a stipulated amount of coverage, which then controls regardless of the property's actual value or market price (Perzy Mem. 2-3, citing a number of authorities). For its part Intercargo says that "the 'amount declared' method is used only when there is no invoice" (Intercargo Mem. 4, citing nothing in support of that ipse dixit).
Intercargo is of course wrong: Nothing in the Policy's language suggests that the two alternative valuation provisions are of anything other than equal status, either of them being available whenever the parties contract in accordance with those particular terms. But Perzy is wrong too, not in setting out the legal doctrine of the "valued policy" (under which if the parties here had really agreed to adopt a fixed dollar amount of coverage, the authorities cited by Perzy would make that agreement binding), but rather because Wregg (the person who ordered the insurance coverage) had specifically sought to contract with relation to the invoice-amount-plus-other-charges alternative instead.
There is no question that Tansey-Riggs mistakenly based the amount of insurance on the value of all 20 pallets of Schneekugeln that Perzy originally shipped from Austria, rather than on the 13 unsold pallets that Wregg was returning to Perzy in accordance with their agreement. Before this Court turns to the amount of error introduced by that mistake, however, it must first address Perzy's argument that Intercargo's misconduct blocks its resort to the equitable remedy of reformation of the contract.
Opinion at *36-37 rejected Perzy's request for an award of attorneys' fees under 215 ILCS 5/155(1) because of Intercargo's inequitable conduct (in part that conduct consisted of its Vice President Lee Thorson's improper effort to alter the coverage under the Policy after Perzy's claim had already been filed). This Court based that rejection on the fact that Intercargo had separate good faith grounds (though they were ultimately unsuccessful) for denying Perzy's claim. Even though it is a much closer question whether Intercargo's unclean hands (manifested by Thorson's conduct) should bar Intercargo's equitable remedy of reformation, on balance this Court has determined that the issue should be resolved in favor of Intercargo.
Accordingly the question becomes that of quantifying the reformation of the stated insured value of $ 27,839 to reflect accurately the Policy formula of "value at the amount of invoice, including all charges therein, and including prepaid and/or advanced and/or guaranteed freight, if any, plus 10%." Further review of that issue has convinced this Court that the appropriate amount of Perzy's recovery is $ 20,377.59 rather than the slightly larger amount tentatively suggested in Opinion at *29. Here is the breakdown:
1. Wregg's instructions to Tansey-Riggs identified the cost of the 13 pallets at 150,452 Austrian Schillings plus other costs of 18,620 Schillings (Wregg Dep. 35-36).
At the agreed-upon conversion rate of .0954, that total of 169,072 Schillings comes to $ 16,129.47 in United States currency.