were no discussions regarding the endorsement prior to the policy's issuance. There is no evidence as to how or why the endorsement came to be added to Monroe's standard CGL policy. On the other hand, Monroe does not assert that it never intended to provide any "non-owned" or "hired" automobile liability coverage under its policy; Monroe clearly intended to include the endorsement. The result is that there is no evidence Monroe and IU had reached any agreement regarding the endorsement that was erroneously exeluded or that the endorsement as originally written contravened the parties' expressed intent. As such, there is no proper basis for retroactively reforming the policy against TU's will. See Gierhart v. Consolidated Rail Corporation-Conrail, 656 N.E.2d 285, 287 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Monroe cites to two other pieces of evidence
holding bia erred in requiring petitioners who were hungarian gypies to prove they were singled out for persecution where there was evidence other gypsies were being persecuted holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding that requirements of apprendi were not met where facts on which sentence enhancement was based were not charged and submitted to the jury holding that sufficient revocatory intent was present where the words annulled and void were written in testators handwriting with intent of revoking the entire will being shown at time of writing such words holding reformation was inappropriate where there was no showing that words were inserted which were agreed to be left out or that words were omitted which were agreed to be inserted