either the insurer or the insured when the policy was issued should not be enough by itself to warrant unilateral and retroactive reformation of the policy. See Beck v. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 429 F.2d 813, 817-18 (5th Cir.1970). There were no discussions or agreements between the parties regarding the endorsement at the time the policy was issued. The plain language of the policy as originally written does in fact give rise to coverage under these cireumstances. To the extent Monroe might not have wanted to do so but failed originally to write the policy to capture that intent concerns a unilateral mistake of law and a failure to give heed to the plain language of the policy. Reformation of a contract is not available in such a situation. See Gierhart, 656 N.E.2d at 287 (<HOLDING>). We believe that as a general rule, courts
holding that mutual mistake as to essential element of plea agreement can invalidate entire agreement holding to the same effect holding that principle of mutual mistake does not apply to permit modification of plea agreement holding rule that any payment agreement having four or more installments is a finance agreement not an improper conclusive presumption holding reformation is improper where mistake only goes to the effect of an agreement