PIERCE, Judge.

         Plaintiff, Dossey, appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant insurance companies (Insurers) and defendant insurance agent (Martin). We affirm.

         Involuntary plaintiff, Macorada Farm Store, Inc., (Macorada) is a corporation whose business primarily involves the purchase and sale of products in the vicinity of Cortez, Colorado. In October 1968, Martin issued to Macorada four insurance policies which were in effect during the period pertinent to this litigation. The policies insured against the loss by fire of any stock, materials, and supplies that were 'the property of (Macorada), or held in trust, or on consignment, or held by (Macorada) and for which (Macorada) is liable in the event of loss. . . .'

         Sometime in November of 1968, Graham, the president of Macorada, telephoned Martin and sought to buy additional insurance on some beans he said the company had 'bought' in La Plata County. Martin advised Graham that if Graham included the value of the beans in his next monthly report of inventory values, the beans would be automatically covered by the existing insurance policies. Dossey, the owner of the beans, testified that Graham told him that the beans were covered by Macorada's insurance, but the record does not indicate whether Graham limited his statement to beans that had been 'bought' by Macorada.

         In the summer of 1969, Macorada informally agreed to purchase all of Dossey's 1969 been crop. However, as found by the trial court and supported by the evidence, this agreement did not constitute a binding contract for future purchase and sale of the beans. Graham and Dossey both testified that Dossey remained free to make another disposition of the crop if he so wished.

         In September 1969, after Dossey had begun harvesting, several truckloads of his beans were delivered to Macorada's warehouse. Because Macorada's warehouse was full, Graham sent word to Dossey and suggested that Dossey store his beans at a warehouse then being rented by Dossey, known as the Benton warehouse. On October 2, 1969, the Benton warehouse and its contents were destroyed by fire.

         Plaintiff's complaint pled three claims for relief. The first claim primarily sought reformation of the insurance contracts, but the issues of waiver and estoppel also were presented to, and determined by, the trial court. The second and third claims for relief sought damages against Martin for his alleged negligence in failing to obtain the insurance coverage desired by Macorada. In conjunction with these latter two claims for relief, the trial court also considered the issue of whether the insurance policies, as written, provided coverage for the destroyed beans. Although not raised on appeal, Dossey's standing to raise some of these issues is questionable.          We do not reach the issue of his standing, because the trial court's judgment is sustainable on the issues that were raised and briefed by the parties.

          We conclude that the policies did not provide insurance coverage for the destroyed beans. They covered stock, materials, and supplies that were 'the property of the insured' or were 'held' by the insured. Since the parties had never intended to enter a binding contract for the sale of the beans, no dominion passed to Macorada, and the beans were not Macorada's 'property' within the terms of the policy. See C.R.S.1963, 155--2--204; Burke v. Boulder Milling & Elevator Co., 77 Colo. 230, 235 P. 574; And Petzoldt v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 157 F.Supp. 184 (D.Colo.), aff'd sub nom., First National Bank v. Petzoldt, 262 F.2d 540 (10th Cir.).

         Further, the trial court found that Macorada had no right to possess or control the Benton warehouse, but rather had only a permissive right to enter the warehouse premises. This finding, drawn from conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed on review. Rauch v. Rhoades, 172 Colo. 152, 470 P.2d 854. Thus, Macorada did not possess or have the right, either by itself or through an agent, to possess the property. Hence, the beans were not 'held' by Macorada within the terms of the policies. See Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 555 (3rd ed.); In re Coe's Estate, 33 Cal.2d 502, 202 P.2d 1022; Turner v. Horton, 18 Wyo. 281, 106 P. 688, and See San Antonio Independent School District v. Water Works Board of Trustees, 120 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.Civ.App.).

          As to the claim for reformation of the insurance contracts, our Supreme Court has held that:

'(T)here can be no reformation unless there is a preliminary or prior agreement, either written or verbal between the parties, furnishing the basis for rectification, or to which the instrument can be conformed.'

         Segelke v. Kilmer, 145 Colo. 538, 360 P.2d 423. There is no evidence in the record of an agreement between Macorada and Martin prior to the issuance of the four insurance policies, and the trial court specifically found that no prior agreement had existed. Moreover, a reformation can be granted only for a mutual mistake of fact regarding coverage of the beans destroyed in this fire, Crews v. Yenter, 143 Colo. 102, 352 P.2d 295, but the record contains no evidence of such a mutual mistake. The reforemation of the insurance contract was properly denied.

          Dossey's claim that Martin was negligent in failing to procure insurance covering the 1969 beans is also without merit. There is no evidence in the record that Graham requested Martin to procure such insurance. The telephone call to Martin can, at the most, be construed as a request to obtain insurance on beans that had been 'bought' by Macorada. Since Martin had no duty to obtain insurance covering the 1969 beans, he cannot be held liable under a negligence theory. Arapahoe Land Title, inc. v. Contract Financing, Ltd., 28 Colo.App. 393, 472 P.2d 754.

          Dossey's remaining claims are: That the insurers were estopped from denying that the destroyed beans were covered; that the insurers had waived any policy restrictions which would have excluded the beans from insurance coverage; and that Martin misrepresented the extent of insurance coverage provided by the policies. These claims are based upon Martin's November 1968 statements during his phone conversation with Graham. Martin's statements were conditioned on and limited by Graham's representation that Macorada had 'bought' the beans. Therefore, Martin's statement cannot constitute a misrepresentation, nor can it create an estoppel or waiver, regarding the destroyed beans, which were not owned or possessed by Macorada nor subject to Macorada's control.

         Judgment affirmed.

         BERMAN and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.