DOUGLAS n A lawsuit over insurance coverage triggered by the collapse of a newly constructed steel building at the state fairgrounds in June 2005 has finally been heard.

The outcome could reinforce a legal precedent that the insured has the final responsibility to make sure a policy is written as intended. Or, the outcome could provide some relief for insured parties who believe their insurance agents have followed directions and secured the coverage sought.

When the fairgrounds building in Douglas collapsed following improper bracing by a subcontractor, contractor W.N. McMurry Construction discovered the project was underinsured.

Company officials thought they had a policy covering the full construction contract of $5.5 million. That's what they had asked their agent, Community First, later taken over by BW Insurance Agency, to secure.

But construction company officials apparently never read the final policy, which offered coverage for about $1 million n representing only the cost of the steel for the buildings.

At some point in conversations between the agent and the underwriter, Ohio Casualty, the amount of coverage needed was mistaken, leaving McMurry Construction without the coverage required by its contract with the state Department of Agriculture, which oversees the fairgrounds.

The incident sparked a lawsuit by McMurry against Community First Insurance, BW Insurance Agency and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company in November 2005.

The agencies and underwriter, however, countered that the responsibility for ensuring the contract was as intended lay with the party soliciting the coverage, also called a "duty to read."

Judge John C. Brooks of the Seventh Judicial District Court agreed, issuing summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

McMurry attorney W.W. Reeves appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which decided in June 2007 to reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for trial.

In the opinion, Chief Justice Barton Voigt wrote that the intention of both parties was to cover the full project costs, and that " . . . justice is not served by judicial enforcement of the mistaken writing, rather than the intended agreement, just because one of the parties did not read the writing."

Voigt added that, "While we continue to hold that failure to read and failure to mitigate bar the legal claims . . . we conclude that they should not and do not bar the equitable remedy of contract reformation."

The court's decision allowed McMurry to pursue reforming the contract to its original intent.

After three and a half days of testimony this week from nine witnesses and exploration of five volumes of exhibits, Brooks closed the trial in his Douglas courtroom. Both parties have until Feb. 29 to submit in writing their closing arguments.

Brooks said that several points are "absolutely clear."

McMurry Construction and Ohio Casualty both clearly intended to insure the buildings for the full amount. Evidence also demonstrated that "there was failure of communication about the value of the buildings," Brooks said, adding that the question now is whether the miscommunication is enough for the court to order the contract reformed.

Brooks also said that BW Insurance Agency was a substantial, if not the primary, source of the miscommunication.

"They failed to do what they were supposed to do," he said.

Following the trial, Reeves said the "duty to read" rule essentially allows the law to excuse agents of responsibility. The defense based its case on that rule and the Supreme Court agreed, Reeves noted. BW Insurance was dismissed as a party to the lawsuit because of McMurry's failure to read its policy.

Concurrently, Brooks heard a second lawsuit brought by McMurry Construction against BW Insurance and Ohio Casualty. In that second matter, McMurry contends that BW had insured a company driver which Ohio Casualty had apparently not agreed to insure, and who was involved in an accident causing damage to a third party.